rt . 
Se 


is 
et 


; ig 
zest 


ot 


ms Baier 
aii 


cies 


cage 


Te Seca 187 


ibe 


an 


ee 
Aad, 





THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


2ie.7, 2: 


M 57 SEL 
1284 


afi 
: 
“4 
: 
: 
= 





Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 


University of Illinois Library 





L161—H41 





20%. ue 


. , } . & = 
ee Me Lome vt 





>! J »* 
, ¥ 7 d 
gx . . id a 
- e 
ene ¢ ; pie 
; hae 2 f 
% - 
) y 
\ % 
s} fi 
; Nv ae 
‘ ¥ 
‘ ; 
a j Li 2 f . 
r Ls | 
4 7 
~4 
: . - ps 
; \ 
, ¥ 
phe hy wed - ' 
ah F : 
| f 
“ 4 ; 
. at 
; 4 : 
: \ ’ 4 \ 
i 
. e Y A 
Lo : 
. . i 
\ 
4 ¢ > | 4 
. 4 
. : 
; ‘ ft ie 
7 : 
. en 
e., a 4 
4 , ) 
F : 
; 
f . : 
: 4 
oh 
é ¢ \ 
. % * 
— ’ f 
: “ 
4 * ‘ A 
7 <@ 
r 
" eo noe 
‘ i . . ‘ 
me ; c j ‘ . 
2 { fi 
me 
: ‘ < ¢ " | 
‘ 
nee 4 r me XK : 
‘ F, \ Ais 
Ko: : , 
2 ny r t : 
* Ne . 
By t . 
’ ’ ? « ” £ 
* “ ‘ 
49 : 
\ , 
+ f pA - - : v 
= * i* 








CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HAND-BOOK': 


TO THE 


EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


BY 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D. 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
Rey. D. DOUGLAS BANNERMAN, M.A. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES BY 
TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D. 


NE LIBRARY OF Tye 


UN | 
MW Verve s 1 HF teriicie 
s UIs 


NEW YORK: 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 
10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 


1884, 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. 


16 Jars. 73 4.79.4 


2.86°33.P rth Uwi Mich nib. BWW HK bOR 


LL 2 
MS7RIS Eb 


VERE 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


THE Epistles to the Corinthians stand almost alone in character and aim 
among the writings of the great Apostle. They are not didactic, like Ro- 
mans and Galatians : the former a profound discussion of the principles 
of Anthropology and Soteriology, the latter an indignant protest against 
opinions and practices which threatened to subvert the very foundation 
of the Gospel. Nor do they resemble the Epistles written from the im- 
prisonment at Rome, two of which, Philippians and Colossians, reassert 
a Christology as lofty and far-reaching as John’s, while the other two, 
Philippians and Philemon, are the outpouring of a heart filled with 


Christian love, and yearning for the spiritual welfare of the parties ad- 


dressed. Still less are they like the Apostie’s first written utterances 
of which we have record, those to the Thessalonians, bearing in every 
page traces of the trials through which these believers had passed, and 
animating them to renewed constancy; or his last Epistles, those to 
Timothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications of church 
officers. In the Corinthians, on the contrary, we are introduced into a 
variety of the phases of ordinary life in an Apostolic church, and a 
series of questions is taken up and discussed, not abstractly, but in 1m- 
mediate application to the circumstances of the people at the time. Doc- 
trinal themes, with a single important exception, the general resurrec- 
tion (I. xv.), are not handled at length, although the existence and va- 
lidity of the cardinal features of the system are presupposed throughout, 
and upon occasion briefly touched upon with great vigour. 

The First Epistle gives us a very clear conception of the actual state 
of the ancient churches, their excellences and their defects, the rela- 
tions in which their members stood to the unbelievers among whom 
they lived, the errors in practice to which they were exposed, their use 
and abuse of extraordinary gifts, their methods in worship, their appli- 
cation of Christian principles in the affairs of ordinary life, and the 
whole movement of events as a society of believers grew and developed 
in the midst of a great commercial city which was wealthy and refined, 
but at the same time unusually depraved. ‘The conflict between light 
and darkness, right and wrong, truth and error, was of course much the 


—~ 833564 


1V PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


same in all parts of the Roman world where the standard of the cross 
was raised and its adherents were gathered into a community, but no- 
where was it carried on so intensely or at so many different points as in 
Corinth. Hence we are enabled to see here what was the true life of an 
apostolic church, to catch the spirit of its important movements and ap- 
prehend its mingled good and evil. The many questions of morality 
and casuistry which arose in this lively and intelligent population afford 
us a very clear insight into the feelings and opinions of the early 
Christians. The solution of these questions discloses the .extraordinary 
versatility of the Apostle’s mind, and his power of dealing with diffi- 
cult and complicated matters as’ well as with unscrupulous opponents. 
‘« Yor every aberration he has a word of severe censure, for every dan- 
ger a word of warning, for every weakness a word of cheer and sym- 
pathy, for every returning offender a word of pardon and encourage- 
ment.’?* Nor does he ever seem at aloss. Whatever the case, he is 
able to meet it. No point is evaded. He solves all questions by an 
appeal to Scripture, or to the words of Christ, or to his own immedi- 
ate inspiration as an organ of the Holy Ghost. And he solves them for 
all places and ages. It is not by expedients or make-shifts, but by 
going to first principles, that he settles difficulties about ministerial sup- 
port, or a litigious spirit, marriage rights and duties, fellowship with 
unbelievers, and the like. So that the directions apply not only to the 
specific circumstances that called them forth, but to innumerable others 
of a similar kind. Thus what at first sight is only a book of details, 
becomes.in fact a book of principles. 

The Second Epistle, while partaking in part of the character of the 
First, is chiefly remarkable for the degree in which it discloses to us the 
personal character and experience of its author. In many parts itis like 
anautobiography. A Judaizing party had been at work in Corinth sowing 
dissension and undermining the Gospel by impeaching the credentials, the 
claims, and the conduct of the Apostle. This puts him on his defence. 
He was compelled to vindicate himself, for he was a witness of the res- 
urrection, a founder of churches, a channel of inspiration, a chosen ves- 
sel to bear the gospel to the Gentiles. Now if in the chief city of 
Greece, one connected closely by arts and trade with the East and the 
‘West, Paul’s authority was struck down, and he was shown to be aman of 
words and not of deeds, a boaster, an intruder, vacillating in his pur- 
poses and selfish in his aims, the consequences could not fail to be disas- 
trous. Here the character of the message was bound up with that of the — 
messenger, If he were aman of mere secular impulses and without divine 


1 Schaff. 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vv 


authority, all the churches from Antioch to Philippi would be sorely 
embarrassed. It was necessary then for the Apostle to discuss the mat- 
ter fully and plainly, and establish beyond controversy the soundness of 
his claims as a representative of Christ and an organ of the Spirit. 
Hence the seemingly petty personal details, to which he refers so often 
- and at so much length, are by no means to be attributed to an exvess of 
egotism or self-consciousness, or even to be considered as pardonable 
flaws in what otherwise was a career of very great excellence, but are 
rather themselves to be highly prized, not simply as illustrations of 
character, but as valid proofs of that which is as important to-day as it 
was in the years 57, 58 of our era,—viz. the plenary authority of 
Paul ‘as a penman of holy Scripture. Our Lord told the Twelve that he 
had much to say to them, but they were not able to bear it then (John 
xvi. 12); and he would therefore send a heavenly Paraclete, who would 
guide them into ‘‘ all the truth,’’ so that the revelation of God’s mind 
and will for human salvation should be complete. It appears that the 
greater part of this supplementary disclosure came through Paul. So 
the New Testament represents the case. But if he were not what he 
professed to be, but were either an impostor or a self-deceiver, then the 
thirteen Epistles which bear his name are no guide in doctrine or duty, 
and the space they hold in the Scripture is a mere blank or worse. It is 
right then that the truth in this respect should be set forth, and the ex- 
hibition of it be preserved to our own day as a testimony that our faith 
is not in vain, nor are we following a cunningly devised fable. 

The Epistle is a portrait of the Apostle, drawn unconsciously by his 
own hand. He opens his whole heart, relating his joys and his sorrows, 
his fears and his hopes, his labors, his trials, his ‘anxieties, his steadfast 
faith and holy love, his disinterestedness, his self-sacrifice, his fidelity, 
and his courage. He refers or alludes to much of which we find no 
record in the Acts of the Apostles, and hence we get afar more vivid 
conception of his character than would otherwise be possible. He was 
a great man, measured by any standard we may choose to apply—great in 
intellect, in resources, in versatility, in application, in aduninistrative 
faculty—but without the least tinge either of pride or vanity. He could 
not, of course, be unconscious of his gifts or of the work he was enabled 
to perform, but the thought of these things led him only to magnify the 
grace by which he came to be what he was. He was a man of energy 
and decision, who, if need were, could come with a rod and not spare, 
but the element of harshness so conspicuous in his course before conver- 
sion was wholly wanting. He pronounced a prompt judgment upon 
one who had erred, yet. when discipline had wrought its destined pur- 
pose, he was urgent that the penitent offender should be restored, lest he 


vl PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. His zeal glowed like a torch 
through life, yet it never consumed the tenderness which is needed to 
make one mindful of the feelings of others. His sympathy was wide 
and deep and constant. It took in all classes and conditions and races 
of his fellow-men. Carried out as it was in word and act, as we see in 
the development of these Epistles, it entitles him justly to be called the . 
benefactor of our kind, the foremost philanthropist of all time. | 

Here appropriately may be added a paragraph from Dr. Meyer’s Pref- 
ace to the fourth edition of his comment on the First Epistle, for some 
reason omitted in the fifth: ‘‘ No apostolic writing transports us so 
directly and in such a lively manner into the varied concrete relations of 
the Church, as does this Epistle. It represents the peculiar development 
of the Christian Church life in one of the most brilliant seats of Grecian 
culture and heathen corruption, a development in which the victory of 
the cross over men’s wickedness and their folly was more endangered, 
and the fulfilment of the apostolic entreaty, Be ye reconciled unto 
God, was encumbered with greater difficulties than anywhere else. 
But all the serious obstacles with which the world-subduing divine life 
had there to contend were met by the Apostle, who was the Lord’s 
chosen instrument to convey this divine life, with a clearness and cer- 
tainty of judgment, with a humility and elevation of consciousness, with 
a tenderness and boldness of utterance, with a never-failing tact, that 
make us follow him through the entire letter with a constantly increas- 
ing astonishment. And when one considers the Attic elegance, the 
Demosthenic force, the almost lyric elevation of his speech in which 
yet is heard the beating of the heart. of Christ, we feel in truth at each 
step, how much more than Demosthenes is here, how much more than 
Homer and Pindar who have sung so highly the praises of d6AGia Képir- 
doc. Ah, her true dABopé6po¢ was the very man whom the people of 
the Areopagus disdained and the philosophers of Athens derided as a 
oTEpoAoyoc.”’ 

Dr. Meyer’s treatment of these Epistles resembles his general style 
when handling other portions of the New Testament. He shows the 
same independence, research, insight, and careful study of the original 
text, which have given him his deserved pre-eminence among expositors 
of the Word. There appear also his two leading imperfections—viz. 
what is called purism, in adhering in all cases to strict grammatical 
forms, even when the sense seems to require another view, as for example 
in insisting that va always and everywhere is to be considered as having 
a telic force, and again in finding a reference to the Parousia in very 
many cases where such a reference is not obvious, and tends rather to 
perplex than to elucidate the connection. Still there is great satisfaction 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vil 


in following a critic who is so keen and incisive, is so thoroughly ac- 
quainted with all the literature, both preceding and contemporary, con- 
nected with the matters in hand, and is so honest and fearless in stating 
the conclusions to which he has come and the grounds upon which 
they rest. 

The notes appended to each chapter by the editor have been intended 
in a few cases to indicate dissent from the views of the author, but in 
the main to present such suggestions concerning the scope and applica- 
tion of the Apostle’s words as have been derived from the labors of 
other writers. As Dr. Meyer in common with nearly all German critics 
omits to refer to English commentators, the editor has taken occasion 
to cite at times the opinions of such scholars as Stanley, Hodge, Poor, 
Principal Brown, Beet, and others who have given attention to these 
Epistles. The English translation has been revised throughout, but it 
was so carefully executed as very rarely to need correction. One of the 
features of the original work, the frequent and copious citation of Greek 
words and clauses, may render it less acceptable to lay readers, but 
ought to enhance its value to clerical students, since the careful study 
of these extracts will tend to increase their familiarity with the original 
tongue as well as to render them more intelligent and more competent 
judges of the merits of the author’s opinions. And there are few 
authors in the whole domain of New Testament exegesis whose writings 
are so worthy of patient and prolonged study as those of the Obercon- 
sistorialrath of Hannover who through a long life steadily grew step 
by step with his work, and by his profound study of the divine word 
obtained a more perfect experience of the saving grace and truth of the 
gospel. , | 

The Topical Index at the end of the volume has been prepared by the 
Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a 
general supervision cf the work while passing through the press. 


T. W. CHAMBERS. 
New Yorx, April 28th, 1884. 





PREFACE, 





Arter having been mainly occupied of late years with the historical 
books of the New Testament, I have now to turn to the Epistles of Paul, 
and to devote renewed labour to their exposition. In the present sadly 
distracted age of the church I feel the deep gravity and responsibility of 
the task which I have to face all the more strongly, because I cannot 
but bear in mind that among all the sacred writings, it was those very 
Epistles of Paul which were pre-eminently to the Reformers the con- 
quering sword of the Spirit, and which exercised the most powerful 
influence in moulding the doctrinal system of our church. The charac- 
ters of Paul and Luther form a historical parallel, to which nothing sim- 
ilar can be found in the whole series of God’s chosen instruments for 
the furtherance of evangelical truth. We possess the divine light which 
Paul bore through the world, and in whose radiance the Reformers did 
their work ; the whole Scripture, with all its treasures, becomes day by 
day more richly opened up to us by the labours of science ; but every- 
where, from the extreme right to the extreme left, there is party-strife ; 
and, amid the knowledge that puffeth up, the unity of the Spirit is 
broken, faith languishes, and love grows cold. Itis, in truth, as though 
we were giving all diligence to afford the confirmation of increasing ex- 
perience to the malicious assertion of the Romanists, that Protestantism 
is already in full course of decomposition. 

Our wounds will not be healed, but only deepened and widened, by 
arrogant boasting about our Confessions, which are after all but the 
works of men. Much less will the end be attained by a wanton attenu- 
ating, explaining away, or setting aside of the positive teachings of the 
N. T., and of the miraculous facts in the history of redemption ; for 
these have subdued the world, and must continue to subdue it. Only 
in that which is and remains the ‘‘ norma normans’’ for all faith and all 
teaching, and for the Confessions themselves,—only in the living word 
of revelation resides the God-given power to heal, which will promote 
the restoration to health, and the union of the body of the church, with 
surer and more lasting effect, just in proportion as the word is more 
clearly and fully understood and more truly and energetically appropri- 


x PREFACE. 


ated, and as, through such understanding and appropriation of it, the 
supremacy of the word and of its high moral forces becomes more abso- 
Jute and all-controlling. To this sacred supremacy the church herself 
with her doctrine must bow as well as the individual. For in laying 
down her principle of appeal to Scripture, the church assumed not only 
the possibility and allowableness, but also the necessity of a further 
development and—where need should be shown—rectification of her 
doctrine in accordance with Scripture. In this way the Confession 
points to an authority transcending its own; and the church, built as 
she is immovably upon the everlasting Rock, has placed herself under 
the law of growth, thereby giving augury of a future, which, according 
to the apostle’s promise (Eph. iv. 13 ff.), despite all the sorrows of the . 
present, will not fail to be realized. To aid in preparing for this bright 
future, is what all exposition of Scripture should recognize as its appointed 
task, being mindful at the same time that the steps in the development 
of the divine kingdom are centuries, and that the ways of Him who 
rules over it are not our ways. If, therefore, a thorough and conscien- 
tious searching of the Scriptures should arrive, as regards this or that 
point of doctrine, at results which are at variance with confessional defi- 
nitions, its duty, at the bidding of the exegetical conscience, is not in 
an un-Lutheran and unprincipled fashion to disguise such results or to 
cloak them with a misty phraseology, but, trusting to the sifting and con- 
quering power of divine truth, openly and honestly to hand them over 
to the judgment of science and the church. Toscience and the church, 
IT repeat ; for it is one of the follies of the day to seek to set these at 
variance—to impose limits upon the former which are opposed to its es- 
sential nature, and to set aside its voice and relegate it to silence under 
an imaginary belief that a service is thereby rendered to the church. 
Such a piece of folly is unevangelical, and fit only for the Tridentinum 
and the Syllabus of the Bishop of Rome. 

Now, if nothing save the pure word of God may or ought to prepare 
the way towards a better future for the church, then all expounders of 
that word have but one common aim placed before them,—namely, just 
to ascertain its pure contents, without addition or subtraction and witha 
renouncing of all invention of our own, with simplicity, truth, and clear- 
ness, Without being prejudiced by, and independent of, dogmatic & priort 
postulates, with philological precision, and in strict objectivity as historical 
fact. Anything more than this they ought not as expositors to attempt ; 
but in this—and it is much—it is required of them that they be found 
faithful. The plan of procedure adopted may vary ; one may prefer the 
glossematic, another the inductive, method. JI attach but little weight 
to this question of method in itself, although I cannot ignore the fact, 


PREFACE. x1 


attested by various works appearing at the present day in the region of 
Old and New Testament exegesis, that the inductive mode runs more 
risk of giving to subjective exegesis a free play which should be rigor- 
ously denied to it. One is very apt, under the influence of this method, 
to give something more or less, or other than, the pure contents of the 
sacred text. The ingenuity, which in this way has ampler room for manip- 
ulating the premisses—how often with the aid of refining sophistry ! 
—and thinks itself justified in so doing, always miscarries in spite of all 
its plausibility and confidence, when it gives to the world expositions that 
offend against grammar and linguistic usage, or against the general and 
special connection, or against both. Often in such cases the doubtful 
_ recommendation of novelty’ is purchased only by strange strainings of 
the text and other violent expedients, while clearness has not unfre- 
quently to be sought for beneath the cloak of a laboriously involved 
- phraseology, which itself in its turn seems to require a commentary. 

In preparing this fifth edition, which was preceded by the fourth in 
1861, I have not neglected to give due attention to what has since been 
done for the criticism and exposition of the apostolic Epistle.* While 
thus engaged, I have very frequently, to my regret, found myself unable 


1A great many entirely novel expositions of individual passages make their 
appearance nowadays, of which I apprehend that hardly a single one will on trial “ 
prove itself correct. Not that Iam unduly attached to the traditions of exege- 
sis ; but long experience and observation in this field of scientific inquiry have 
taught me that—after there have been expended upon the N. T., in far greater 
measure even than upon the O. T., the labours of the learning, the acuteness, 
the mastery of Scripture, and the pious insight of eighteen centuries—new in- 
terpretations, undiscerned hitherto by theminds most conversant with such 
studies, are destined as a rule speedily to perish and be deservedly forgotten. I — 
am distrustful of such exegetical discoveries ; and those of the present day are 
not of a kind to lessen my distrust. Apart from these there remain difficulty 
and reward enough for the labours of exegesis. 

2 Klépper’s Eveg-kritische Untersuchungen iéber den zweiten. Korintherbrief, Git- 
ting. 1869, with the accompanying dissertation on the ‘‘Christ-party,’’ ap- 
peared too late to be taken into consideration along with the other literature of 
the subject. But the dissertation in question belongs for the most part to the 
sphere of the second Epistle. It is from the second Epistle that it draws, more 
thoroughly and consistently than is done by Beyschlag, the characteristics of 
the Christ-party, combining these in such a way as to represent it as in funda- 
mental opposition to the apostle’s views and teaching with respect to Christol- 
ogy and Soteriology. I cannot, however, but continue to regard the process, 
which takes the traits for the delineation of the ‘‘Christ-party’’ from the 
second Epistle, as an unwarrantable one.—It was likewise impossible to include 
in my examination the just published book of Richard Schmidt, die Paulinische 
Christologie in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Heilslehre des Apostels, GOtting. 
1870. 


xl PREFACE. 


to agree with von Hofmann’s work : Die hetlige Schrift neuen Testaments 
zusammerhangend untersucht. 1 have nowhere sought this antagonism, 
but it was as little my duty to evade or conceal it. Our exegetical natures 
are very differently constituted ; our paths diverge widely from each 
other, and the means which we have at our disposal, and which we deem 
it right to employ, are dissimilar, Possibly out of this very antagonism 
some advantage may accrue to the understanding of the New Testa- 
ment. 


HANNOVER, 30th November, 1869, 


1 This work is, for the sake of brevity, referred to merely by ‘‘Hofmann,”’ 
other works of the author being more precisely designated by their title. 


 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testa- 
tament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for 
those which treat of the Pauline or Apostolic Epistles generally, see Preface to 
the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes 
only those which relate to the Epistles to the Corinthians (together or sepa- 
rately), or in which one of these Epistles holds the first place on the title-page. 
Works mainly of a popular and practical character have, with a few exceptions, 
been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in themselves, they have but 
little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. Mon- 
ographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The 
editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended denotes that the book 
has been more or less frequently reprinted ; + marks the date of the author's 
death ; c. circa.] 


AxersLoot (Theodorus), Reformed Minister in Holland: D’eerste Sendbrief 
; van Paulus aan. die van Korinthen, kortelyk in haar t’samenhang 
uytgelegt. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1707. 
ALPHEN (Hieronymus Simon van), + 1742, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Ontlee- 
dende verklaaring van Paullus tweden brief aan die Corinther. 
4°, Amst. 1708, al. 
AmpBrosiasTER. See Romans. : 


BAUMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung der 


beiden Briefe Pauli an die Corinther. 49, Halle, 1761: 
BrtrotH (Johann Gustav Friedrich), + 1836, Prof. at Halle: Commentar zu 
den Briefen des Paulus an die Korinther. 8°, Leip. 1839. 


[Translated by William Lindsay Alexander, D.D., 2 vols. 
12°, Edin. 1837-8. ] 
Burcer (Karl Heinrich August von), Oberconsistorialrath at Munich: Der 
_ erste [und der zweite] Brief Pauli an die Korinther deutsch ausgelegt, 
2 Bande. 8°, Erlangen, 1859-60. 


Coccrtus [Kocu] (Johann), + 1669, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in . 
in Epistolas I. et II. ad Corinthios [Opera]. 
Contzren (Adam), + 1635, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolas 8. Pauli 


ad Corinthios et ad Galatas. 2°, Colon. 1631. 
CreLu (Johann), + 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in priorem | 
Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam [Opera]. 8°, Racov. 1635. 


EMMERLING (Christian August Gottfried), + 1827, Pastor at Probsthaida : Epis- 
tola Pauli ad Corinthios posterior, Graece, perpetuo commentario il- 
lustrata. 8° Lips. 1823. 


. Fuarr (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen 
iiber die Briefe an die Corinther, herausgegeben von C. D. F. Hoff- 
mann. 8°, Tiibing. 1827. 
FritzscHe (Karl Friedrich August), + 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : De non- 
nullis posterioris Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolae locis dissertationes 
duae. 8°, Lips. 1824. 


Gratama (Janus Aafeo): Commentatio in Paulinae Epistolae prioris ad Co- 
_rinthios caput vii. 8°, Groning. 1846, 


X1V EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


HeypeEnretcn (August Ludwig Christian), + c. 1856, Prof. at Herborn; Com- 
mentarius in priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam, 2 voll. 

8°, Marb. 1825-7. 

Hoper (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton: An exposition of the First 

Epistle to the Corinthians. 8°, Lond. 1857. 

An exposition of the Second Epistle. 8°, Lond. 1860. 

Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die 

Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht (II. 

2, 3 Briefe an die Korinther), 8°, Nordlingen, 1864-6, al. 


JAncER (C. F. Heinrich): Erklirung der beiden Briefe des Apostel Paulus 
nach Corinth, aus dem Gesichtspunkte der vier Partheien daselbst. 
8°, Tiibing. 1838. 


Kune (Christian Friedrich), Dean of Marbach on the Neckar: Die Korinther- 
briefe theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [Lange’s Bibelwerk, Theil. 


Virals 8°, Bielefeld, 1861, al. 
[Translated with additions by Daniel W. Poor, D.D., and Conway B. 
Wing, D.D. 8°, New York [and Edin. ], 1869, al.] 


Kiéprer (Albrecht), Tutor at Kénigsberg : Exegetisch-kritische Untersuchun- 
gen tiber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth. 

8°, Gotting. 1869. 

Commentar tiber das zweite Sendschreiben. 8°, Berl. 1874. 

KravsE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), + 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna; Pauli ad 

Corinthios Epistolae Graece. Perpetua annotatione illustravit F. A. 

W. Krause. Vol. i. complectens ep. priorem. 8°, Francof. 1791. 


Lrvun (Johann Georg Friedrich), + 1823, Pastor at Butzbach in Hesse : Pauli ad 
Corinthios Epistola secunda Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata, 
8°, Lemeg. 1804. 
Licutroot (John), D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : Horae Hebrai- 
cae et Talmudicae in Epistolam priorem ad Corinthios. 
49, Cantab. 1664. 


Mater (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar tiber den ersten 

Brief Pauli an die Korinther. 8°, Freiburg, 1857. 

Masor [Mayer] (Georg), ¢ 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenburg : Enarratio Epis- 

tolarum Pauli ad Corinthios. 8°, Viteb. 1558, al. 

Martyr (Peter) [Vermicrr], ¢ 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: In priorem 

D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam commentarii, 2°, Tiguri, 1551, al. 

MexancuTuHon (Philipp), - 1560, Reformer: Brevis et utilis commentarius in 
priorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios et in aliquot capita secundae. 

8°, Vitemb. 1561, al. 

MoLpENHAUER (Johann Heinrich, Daniel), + 1790, Pastor at Hamburg: Erster 

und zweiter Brief an die Corinther nach dem Grundtext tibersetzt mit 


Erklirungen. 8°, Hamb. 1771-2. 
Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Erkli- 
rung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. 8°, Leip. 1794. 


MosueEm (Johann Lorenz von), + 1755, Chancellor and Professor Theol. at Gét- 
tingen : Erklirung des ersten Briefes Pauli an die gemeine zu Corin- 


thus. 4°, Altona, 1741. 
Neue Ausgabe, nebst der Erklirung des zweiten Briefes herausgegeben 
von ©. E. von Windheim, 2 Binde. 4°, Altona u. Flensburg, 1762. 
Muscuuus | Mrussiin] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Commentarius 
in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios. 2°, Basil, 1559, al. 


NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), + 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Auslegung 
der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. Herausgegeben von Willib. Bey- 
schlag. 8°, Berl. 1859. 


OSIANDER (J. Ernst), Dean at Géppingen in Wiirtemberg : Commentar itiber 
den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinthier. 8°, Stuttgart, 1849. 
Commentar iiber den zweiten Brief. 8°, Stuttg. 1858. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XV 


Porr (David Julius), + 1838, Prof. Theol. at Géttingen: Pauli Epistolae ad 
Corinthios Graece perpetua annotatione illustratae. [Novum Testa- 
mentum Koppianum, V. 1.] 8°, Gotting. 1826. 


Rouxock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of University of Edinburgh : Commentarius 
in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios, cum notis Jo. Piscatoris. 

8°, Herborn. 1600, ai. 

Rucxert (Leopold Immannuel), + c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar 

tiber die Briefe an die Corinther. 2 Binde. 8°, Lips. 1836-7. 


Saunt (Laurids), + 1805, Prof. of Greek at Copenhagen : Paraphrasis in priorem 
Epistolam ad Corinthios. ... 49, Hafn. 1778. 

ScHARLING (Carl Emil), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Epistolam Pauli ad Corin- 
thios posteriorem annotationibus in usum juvenum theolog. studioso- 
rum illustravit C. E. Scharling. 8°, Kopenh, 1840. 

ScumipD (Sebastian). See Romans. 

ScuuuzE (Johann Christoph Friedrich), + 1806, Prof. Theol. at Giessen: Pauli 
erster Brief an die Korinther herausgegeben und erklirt.—Zweiter 


Brief erklart ... 8°, Halle, 1784-5. 
ScitaTER (William), D.D., + 1626, Vicar of Pitminster : Utriusque Epistolae ad 
Corinthios explicatio analyticae, una cum scholiis 49, Oxon. 1633. 


SEeMLER (Johann Salomon), ¢ 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Paraphrasis in primam 
Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam cum notis et Latinarum translationum 
excerptis. Et in secundam Epistolam... 12°, Hal. 1770-6. 

Stantey (Arthur Penrhyn), D.D., Dean of Westminster: The Epistles of St. 

Paul to the Corinthians ; with critical notes and dissertations. In two 


volumes. 8°, Lond. 1855, al. 
StevakT (Peter), + 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentaria in utramque 
Epistolam ad Corinthios. 4°, Ingolstad, 1608. 


Storr (Gottlob Christian), ¢ 1805, Consistorialrath at Stuttgart : Notitiae his- 
toricae Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinthios interpretationi servientes. 
4°, Tubing. 1788. 


Tix (Salomon van), ¢ 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Kortbondige verklaaring 
ouer den eersten Brief van Paulus aan die van Korinthen. 
49, Amst. 1731. 
[See also Romans. ] 


Virrinca (Kempe), + 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker : Exercitationes in diffi- 
ciliora loca prioris Epistolae Pauli ad Corinthios. 4°, Franeq. 1784-9. 
Wrinpuerm (Christian Ernst von). See Moser (Johann Lorenz). 


ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Trangott), + 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Paraphrastische 
Erklarung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther, mit vielen Ammerkun- 
gen herausgegeben von J. K. Vollvorth. 2 Bande. 

8°, Gotting. 1784-5. 


To the foregoing list may be added : 
D. W. Poor, Translation and Enlargement of Kling’s Exposition of the First 


Ep., in Lange’s Com. New York, 1868. 
C. P. Wine, Translation and Enlargement of Kling’s Exposition of the Second 

Ep., in Lange’s Com. Thid. 
Canon Evans, Com. on First Ep. in Bible Com. Lond, 1881. 
JosePpH WarTEe, Com. on Second Ep. in Bible Com. Lond. 1881. 
T. T. Spore, on First Ep. in Ellicott’s Com. Lond. 1880. 
E. H. Puumprre, on Second in Ellicott’s Com. Lond. 1880. 


Davin Brown, on both Epistles in Schaff’s Popular Com. on N. T. 
New York, 1882. 


JosepH AcAr Bret, Com. on both Epistles. Lond. 1882. 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


al,, etal. = and others ; and other passages ; and other editions. 

ad. or in loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the 
particular passage, 

comp. = compare, ‘*Comp. on Matt. ili. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com- 
mentary on the passage. So also ‘*See on Matt. iii. 5.”’ 

codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the 
usual letters, the Sinaitic by &. 

min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are 
individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, 
as 33, 89. 

Rec, or Recepta = = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir). 

l.c. = loco citato or laudato. 

ver. = verse, VV. = verses. 

f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16 f. means verses 16 and 17. vv. 16 ff. means 
verses 16 and two or more following. 

vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the 
usual abridged forms. H.g. Syr. = Peshitto Syriac ; Syr. p. = Philox- 
enian Syriac. 

Pp. pp. = page, pages. 

at a — exempli gratia. 

Sen — scilicet, 

N. T. = New Testament: O. T. = Old Testament. 

K.T.A.== Kat TG Aor, 

The colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which 
a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transi- 
tion to the statement of another’s opinions, 

. . . indicates that words are omitted. 

The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their 
usual English names and abbreviations. Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus. 3 
Esd., 4 Esd. (or Esr.) == the books usually termed 1st and 2d Esdras. 

The classical authors are quoted in_ the usual abridged forms by book, chapter, 
etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally 
used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H. 
Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics. 
Roman numerals in small letters are used to denote books or other 
internal divisions (as Thuc. iv.) ; Roman numerals in capitals denote 
volumes (as Kiihner, IT.). 

The references to Winer’s or to Buttmann’s Grammar, given in brackets thus 
[E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Dr. Moulton’s and 
Prof. Thayer's English translations respectively. 


/ 


THE 


FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. 1.—THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT CORINTH. 


Mummius (146 B.C. \t had been rebuilt by J ance Res made 
a Roman colony (Pausan. i. 1. 2), and under the fostering 
care of the first emperors had been speedily restored to its an- 
cient (see Hom. Jl. ii. 570, and especially Pindar, Ol. xiii.) 
glory and voluptuous luxury (hence the expressions xopivtialeoba, xopiutiaarhc, 
and Kopivfia xépy ; see also Dissen, ad Pind. Fragm. p. 640 f.; Ast, ad Plat. 
Rep. p. 404 D),—in that great “EAAado¢ dorpov (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 
_ 223), that rich commercial city, the seat of the Roman proconsulate, of the 
Isthmian games, of the fine arts, and of the learning of the Sophists, but also 
of the most shameless worship of Aphrodite carried on by a thousand 
consecrated courtesans,—the world-conquering faith of Christ had been 
planted by Paul himself (ii. 6). He came thither on his second missionary 
journey from Athens, and spent upwards of a year and a half there (see on 
Acts xvii. 1-17). He lodged with his fellow-craftsman Aquila, who was 
_ converted by him here (see on Acts xviii. 1, 2), and subsequently with the 
proselyte Justus (Acts xviii. 2-7), after his friends Silas and Timotheus had 
arrived (Acts xviii. 5), and Jewish opposition had caused him to separate 
from the synagogue and turn to the Gentiles (Acts xviii. 6 ff.). This had 
the wholesome result of rendering the church, from the very first, a mixed 
(though with a majority of Gentile Christians, Acts xii. 2) and a very nu- 
merous one (Acts xvill. 4, 8, 10), the most important in Greece, the mother- 
church of the province (i. 2), although only a few of the upper and more 
cultivated classes (1 Cor. i. 26 ff.) embraced the faith (such as, on the Jew- 
ish side, the president of the synagogue, Crispus ; see Acts xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor. 
i, 14),—a natural effect, not so much of the simplicity of Paul’s preaching? 





1 Rickert, following Neander (comp. also it with Hellenic forms (Acts xvii.), had led 
Osiander, p. 6), thinks that the failure of him to the resolution of giving up every 
the apostle’s attempt at Athens to gain en- such attempt, and of proclaiming the gos- 
trance for evangelical truth by associating pel among the Greeks also in its entire sim- 


Pa PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(for Apollos also failed to win over the higher classes), as of the intrinsic 
character of the gospel itself (1. 22, 28), which, with its preaching of the 
cross, did not suit the pretensions of the presumed higher culture among 
Jews and Gentiles, especially of their fancied philosophy and of their moral 
laxity.’ 

Some considerable time after the total failure of a public accusation 
brought by the Jews against Paul before the mild proconsul Gallio (see on 
Acts xviii. 12-17), the apostle departed from Corinth with Aquila and 
Priscilla (whom he left in Ephesus), and proceeded to Jerusalem, and thence 
through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 18-23). While he, however, was 
traversing these countries, Apollos—an eloquent and fervid Jew of Alexan- 
dria, who, hitherto merely a disciple of John the Baptist, had completed his 
Christian training with Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 24 ff., 
and the commentary thereon)—betook himself to Corinth (Acts xix. 1), 
where he, as a Pauline Christian, preached no other than Pauline Chris- 
tianity (1 Cor. iil. 6), yet presented it in a different form, deviating with 
the art of his Alexandrian eloquence and with his employment of Alexan- 
drian (Philonian) speculatién, from the simple manner of the apostle (i. 17, 
ii.), probably also entering further than Paul had done (iii. 1) into several 
of the higher doctrines of Christianity. Now, it is easy to understand how 
this difference, although certainly not based upon any divergence in doctrine 
(iii. 5 f., iv. 6, xvi. 12), nevertheless, from the variety of individual tenden- 
cies among the Corinthians, and from the personal respect and love with 
which men clung to the old or the new teacher respectively, came to have 
the hurtful result that some, amidst mutual jealousy, assigned the higher 
place to the former and some to the latter, and that it gradually became a 
point of partisanship with them to call themselves adherents of Paul or of 
Apollos (i. 12),—which was not carried out without engendering pride and 
irritation, to the prejudice of the two teachers in question. 

But the matter did not end with this division into two parties. There 
arrived at Corinth—taking advantage, perhaps, of the very time of Apollos’ 
return to Ephesus—Judaizing teachers, Petrine Christians of anti-Pauline | 


plicity. But the fact is, thatin Athens Paul one. Before hismixed audience in Corinth 


was in the quite peculiar position of having 
to speak in presence of philosophers by pro- 
fession, and, in the first instance, to them 
exclusively. In Corinth, on the other hand, 
in the house of the proselyte Justus, it was 
at all events a very mixed audience (made 
up also of Jews and Gentiles, comp. Acts 
xviii. 8) that he had before him, one entirely 
different from those Stoics and Epicureans 
who laid hold of him in the ayopa at Athens. 
The Athenian address is therefore to be re- 
garded as an exception from his usual mode 
of teaching, demanded by the special cir- 
cumstances of the case. These circum- 
stances, however, did not exist at Corinth, 
and accordingly he had no occasion there 
’ to teach in any other way than his ordinary 


(and he could not regulate his course by 
the possible presence of individual philos- 
ophers among them) his preaching, simple, 
but full of power and fervour, was thor- 
oughly fitted to make converts in numbers, 
as the result proved. And if these were for 
the most part from the humbler ranks, 
Paul was the last man to be led by that cir- 
cumstance to adopt a higher tone; for he 
knew from long experience among what 
classes in society Christianity was wont 
everywhere to strike its first and firmest 
roots. 

1 Comp. generally, Semisch, Pazlus in 
Corinth, in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 
1867, p. 193 ff, 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


leanings, provided with letters of recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), perhaps 
from Peter himself among others, labouring to lower the authority of Paul 
(ix. 2), into whose field of work they intruded, and to exalt the authority 
of Peter (2 Cor. xi. 5). They seem, indeed, not to have come forward with 
any opposition to Paul’s doctrine, for otherwise the apostle wauld, as in his 
Epistle to the Galatians, have controverted their doctrinal errors ; in par- 
ticular, they did not insist upon circumcision. But it was natural that, 
with their Judaizing tendencies generally, with their legal prejudice re- 
garding the use of meats, with their stringency as to the moral law, and 
with their exaltation of Peter at the expense of Paul, they should find ac- 
ceptance with the Jewish-Christian part of the community, since they were 
not slack in vainglorious assertion of the national privileges (2 Cor. v. 12, 
xi, 22, xii. 11), and that against the very man from whom the hereditary 
pride of the Jews had everywhere suffered blows which it felt most keenly. 
Equally natural was it that their appearance and operations should not in- 
duce a union between the two sections that professed Pauline Christianity, 
—the adherents of Paul and of Apollos,—seeing that they had to wage war 
only against Pawl, and not against Apollos, in so far, namely, as apostolic 
authority was claimed for the former only, and not for the latter. The de- 
clared adherents, whom they met with, named as their head Peter, who, for 
that matter, had never himself been in Corinth ; for the statement of 
Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb. ii. 25, is either to be referred to a much 
later period (Ewald, Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 609, 3d ed.), or, as is most 
probable, to be regarded simply as an erroneous inference drawn from 
1 Cor. i. 12. See Pott, Proleg. p. 20 f. ; Baur in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. 
1831, 4, p. 152 ff. 

The addition of a third party to the two already existing aroused a deeper 
feeling of the need for wholly disregarding that which had brought about 
and kept up all this division into parties,—the authority of men,—and for 
returning to Him alone who is the Master of all, namely, to Christ.’ 

‘« We belong to Christ” became accordingly the watchword, unhappily, 
_ however, not of all, nor yet in its right seuse and application, but, on the 
contrary, of a section only ; and these followed out their idea,—which was 
in itself right, but which should have been combined with the recognition 
of the human instruments of Christ (Paul, etc.),—not in the way of them- 
selves keeping clear of schismatic proceedings and acknowledging all as, 
like themselves, disciples of Christ, but in such a manner that in their pro- 
fessed sanctity and lofty abstinence from partisanship they became them- 
selves a party (i. 12), and instead of including the whole community— 
without prejudice to the estimation due to such servants of Christ as Paul 
and others—in their idea, they shut out from it the Pauline, Apollonian, 
and Petrine sections. The Christian community at Corinth, then, was in 
this state of fourfold division when Paul wrote to them our first Epistle ; 
yet it is to be assumed, from xi. 18, xiv. 23, that the evil had not reached 


1 Augustine aptly says, De verb. Dom., Pauli, etc. Et alii, qui nolebant aedificari 
Serm. 13: ‘* Volentes homines aedificari su- super Petrum, sed super petram : Ego au- 
per homines, dicebant: Ego quidem sum tem sum,Christi.” 


4 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


such a height of schism that the church no longer assembled at one place (in 
opposition to Vitringa, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others ; see on i. 2). 

What further knowledge we have regarding the condition of the church 
at that time, especially as to the moral and ecclesiastical evils that prevailed, 
is derived from the contents of the Epistle itself. See § 2. 


Remark 1.—For views differing from the above representation of the parties at 
Corinth, see oni. 12. To the more recent literature of the subject, besides the 
works on Introduction, belong the following: Neander, Ki. Schrift. p. 68 ff., 
and Gesch. d. Pflanzung, etc., I. p. 360 ff., 4th ed. ; Baur in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 
1831, p. 61 ff., 1836, 4, p. 1 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p, 290 ff., 2d ed. ; Schar- 
ling, De Paulo apost. ejusque adversariis, Kopenh. 1836 ; Jaeger, Erkl. d. Briefe 
P. nach Kor. aus d. Gesichtsp. d. vier Parth. Tiib. 1838 ; Schenkel, De eccles. Cor. 
primaeva factionibus turbata, Basil. 1838 ; Goldhorn in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. histor. 
Theol. 1840, 2, p. 121 ff. ; Dihne, d. Christus-parthei in d. apost. Kirche z. Kor., 
Halle 1842 (previously in the Journ. f. Pred. 1841); Kniewel, Ecclesiae Cor. 
vetustiss. dissensiones et turbae, Gedan. 1841 ; Becker, d. Pariheiungen in d. Gem. 
z. Kor., Altona 1842; Riabiger, krit. Untersuchungen tb. d. Inhalt d. beid. Br. 
and. Kor., Bresl. 1847 ; Lutterbeck, neutest. Lehrbegr. II. p. 45 ff. ; Beyschlag 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241 
ff. ; Holtzmann in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 730 ff. ; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. 
d. apost. Zeit. p. 505 ff., 83d ed. Among the latest commentaries, see especially 
those of Osiander, Stuttg. 1847, Introd. § 4 ; Ewald, p. 102 f. ; Hofmann, 1864. 

Remark 2.—Care should be taken not to push the conception of this divi- 
sion into parties too far. As it had only recently arisen, it had not yet made 
itself felt to such an extent as to induce the church in their letter to Paul (see 
§ 2) to write specifically about it (see i. 11). Nor can the dissensions have been 
of long continuance ; at least in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, they appear as something long 
past and gone, with which Clement compares later quarrels as something worse. 

Remark 3.—Only the first part of our Epistle, down to iv. 21, relates to the 
topic of the parties as such. Hence it is a very hazardous course, and one that 
requires great caution, to refer the further points discussed by Paul to the 
different. parties respectively, and to characterize these accordingly, as Jaeger 
and Ribiger more especially, but also Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Beyschlag, and 
others have done to an extent which cannot be made good on historical grounds. 
It is purely and grossly arbitrary to trace all the evils combated in both 
Epistles to the existence of the party divisions, and to depict these, and more 
particularly the Christine section, accordingly. The latteris not once men- 
tioned by Clement,—a circumstance which does not tell in favour of the hy- 
pothesis that lays so much mischief to its charge. 


SEC. 2.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Before the date of our first Epistle there had been a letter—not now 
extant ‘—sent. from the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9); but when 


1The two quite short Epistles.extant in Phil. Masson in Joh. Masson, Histoire crit. 
Armenian, from the Corinthians to Pauland de la républ. des lettres, vol. X., 1714; then 
from Paul to the Corinthians, are wretched by David Wilkins, 1715; by Whiston, 1727, 
apocryphal productions (first published by and his sons, 1736; by Carpzov, Lips. 1776; 


INTRODUCTION. 3 5 


he wrote it, the party-divisions were not yet known to the apostle. He 
received tidings regarding them from ‘‘ those of the household of Chloe” 
(i. 11), and on this account commissioned Timothy to visit Corinth (iv. 17), 
although our Epistle was to anticipate his arrival there (xvi. 10), since he 
had first to journey through Macedonia with Erastus (Acts xix. 22). That 
Apollos also (1 Cor. xvi. 12) had brought Paul information about the divi- 
sions is—judging from i. 11—not to be assumed ; on the contrary, it seems 
probable that they had not perceptibly developed themselves so long 
as Apollos himself remained in Corinth. Next to the vexatious party-divi- 
sions, however, what gave occasion for the apostle’s letter was the un- 
chastity in the church, already spoken of by him in the lost Epistle, and 
which had now manifested itself even in a case of incest (v. 1 ff.). Besides 
this and other evils that called for his intervention, there was quite a special 
and direct occasion for his writing in a letter of the church (vii. 1), brought 
to Paul by deputies from Corinth (xvi. 17), and containing various questions 
(such as with respect to celibacy, vii. 1 ff., and the eating of flesh offered in 
sacrifice, vili. 1 ff.), which demanded an answer from him,’ so that he made 
the messengers—Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus—on their return the 
bearers of his own Epistle in reply (xvi. 12, 17). 

In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter, it 
was the aim-of Paul, first, to counteract the party-divisions and uphold his 
apostolic authority ; secondly, to remove the unchastity which had gained 
ground ; thirdly, to give instruction upon the points regarding which 
queries had been put to him ; and finally, to communicate various other 
instructions, which, in view of the state of things among the Corinthians 
which had come to his knowledge, and partly also in view of the express 
contents of their letter, seemed to him necessary and useful, such as with 
respect to disorder in the public assemblies, with respect to gifts of the Spirit, 
with respect to the resurrection, and with respect to a collection that was to be 
set on foot.? . . 

The contents of the Epistle are accordingly very diversified. After saluta- 
tion and exordium (i. 1-9), the first main section enlarges upon and against 


and in Armenian and English by Aucher, 
Armenian Grammar, etc., Venet. 1819; 
see also Fabric. Cod. Apocr. III. p. 667 ff.). 
Rinck, indeed, has recently (in opposi- 
tion to the earlier defence by Whiston, see 
the objections urged by Carpzov) sought 
to maintain the genuineness of both 
Epistles (das Sendschr. ad. Kor. an ad. Apost. 
Paul, u. das adritte Sendschr. Pauli an die 
Kor.in Armen. Uebersetzung, neu verdeutscht, 
etc., Heidelb. 1823), and that on the footing 
of holding the apostle’s letter not to be 
the one mentioned in v. 9, but a later third 
Epistle. But against this utterly fruitless 
attempt, see Ullmann, ziber den durch Rinck 
bekannt gemachten dritten Brief an ad. Kor. 
und das kurze Sendschreiten der Kor. in the 
Heidelb. Jahrb. 1823; Bengel, A7chiv. 1825, 


p. 287 ff. Regarding the date of the com- 
position of the lost Epistle, see Wieseler, 
Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt. p. 318. 

17That this letter from the church was 
marked by atone of confidence and pride 
of knowledge (Hofmann) cannot, with any 
certainty, be inferred from our Epistle, the. 
many humbling rebukes in which bear up- 
on the evils themselves, not upon that etter 
and its character. 

2 Observe that, in connection with these 
different topics, Paul never makes the 
teachers as such responsible, or gives direc- 
tions to them,—a proof that he was far from 
cherishing the idea of a divinely instituted 
order of teachers. Comp. H6fling, Grund- 
sdtze d. Kirchenverf. p. 279 f., ed. 3. 


6 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the party-divisions, with a detailed justification of the apostle’s mode of 
teaching (i. 10-iv. 21). Then Paul writes regarding the unchastity in the 
church (v.), and regarding the bad habit of having their disputes decided 
before heathen tribunals, thereafter once more warning them against impu- 
rity (vi.). Next he replies to the questions about marriage which had been 
sent to him (vil.), and to the inquiry regarding meat used in sacrifice (viii.— 
xi. 1), making in connection with his instructions as to the latter point a 
digression regarding the unselfish way in which he had discharged his apos- 
tolic office (ix.). Then follow censure and admonition as to disorders in 
the assemblies of the church, partly with reference to the head-covering of 
the women, partly in regard of the love-feasts (xi.) ; then the detailed sec- 
tions respecting spiritual gifts (xil.-xiv.), with the magnificent eulogy on 
love (xili.), and respecting the resurrection of the dead (xv.). Lastly : 
injunctions about the collection for Jerusalem, miscellaneous remarks, and 
greetings (Xvi.). 

It is manifest from the salutation, when rightly understood, that the Epis- 
tle was destined for the whole church at Corinth, without excepting any party 
whatsoever, but including the rest of the Christians of Achaia. 


SEC. 3.—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION—GENUINENESS 
OF THE EPISTLE. 


From xvi. 8, 19 it is certain that Paul wrote in Ephesus,’ and that towards 
the end of his stay in that place, which did not last quite three years (see on 
Acts xix. 10), after he had despatched (Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17) Timothy 
and Erastus to Macedonia (the former to Corinth as well), and had already 
resolved to journey through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 
21; 1 Cor. xvi. 3ff.). The time at which he wrote may be gathered from 
xvi. 8 (some time before Pentecost) and v. 6-8, from which latter passage 
it may be with reason inferred that, when Paul was writing, the feast of 
the Passover was nigh at hand. Consequently : a little before Easter in the 
year 58 (see Introd. to Acts, § 4). 


Remark 1.—The statement in the common subscription éypdéon aré Gi2irrwr is 
an old (already in Syr.) and widespread error, arising from xvi. 5. In reply to 
the quite untenable grounds urged by Kohler (Abfassungqszeit der epistol. Schriften, 
p. 74 f£.), who accepts it, and puts the date of composition after the (errone- 
ously assumed) liberation from imprisonment at Rome, see Anger, temp. rat. 
p. 53 ff. Comp. Riickert, p. 12 ff.; Wurm in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1838, I. p. 63 
ff. The correct subscription is found in B**, Copt. Chrys. Euthal. Theodoret, 
al. : mpoc Kop. a éypadn a6 ’ Edéoov. 

Remark 2.—The decision of the question, whether Paul, previous to the 
writing of our two Epistles, had been only once, or whether he had been twice, 


1 Mill and Haenlein strangely took it  p. 30) avails himself of this circumstance in 
to mean : not in, but near Ephesus, because support of his hypothesis, that the Epistle 
Paul, in xvi. 8, did not write ein place of | was written in Southern Achaia. See, 
év’Ed.! Bottger also (Beitrdge zur hist. against this, Riickert, Magaz. f. Hweg. I. p. 
krit. Hinl. in die Paul. Br., GOtting. 1837, III. 132 ff. 


INTRODUCTION. rf 


in Corinth (so rightly Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff., and in his In- 
troduction ; Schrader, I. p. 95 ff. ; Neander, Billroth, Rickert, Anger, Credner, 
Schott, Wurm, Olshausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Ewald, and many others, following 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Baronius, et al.), as also whether we 
must assume a second visit between our first and second Epistles, depends on 2 
Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2. See the particulars in the Introd. to 2 Cor. § 2. 


As to the genwineness, there is no room for doubt in view of the external 
evidences (Polyc. ad Philipp. 11 ; Ignat. ad Eph. 2 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. 
47, 49, Hpist. ad Diogn. 12—Justin M. ¢. Tryph. pp. 253, 258, 338, Apol. I. 
p. 29 are uncertain—Iren. Haer. iii. 11. 9, iv. 27. 3; Athenag. de resurr. p. 
61, ed. Colon. ; Clem. Al. Paedag. p. 96, ed. Sylb. ; Canon Murator. ; Ter- 
tull. de praescrip. 33, al.), and from the whole character of the Epistle (see 
especially Paley, Horae Paulinae), which, with all the variety of its subject- 
matter, bears the most definite impress of the peculiar spirit and tact of 
Paul, and displays the full power, art, and subtlety of his eloquence. 
Bruno Bauer alone in his wanton fashion has sought to dispute it (Aritik 
der Paulin. Briefe, II., Berl. 1851). 


% 
8 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Tlaviov mpos Kopiv@iovs éxigtoAn mporn. 


The simplest and probably oldest superscription is that of A B C D&, min. : 
mpoc Kopiviioveg Tporn. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. xaAnréc] is wanting, indeed, in A D E, Clar. Germ. Cyr. (suspected by 
Mill and Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riickert), but was easily 
overlooked by those to whom the fact was known and familiar, that Paulin the 
beginning of his Epistles almost invariably styles himself azoor. ’I. X. did OeA., 
Ocov without KAntécg ; see2Cor.i. 1; Eph. i.1; Col. i.1; 2'Tim.i.1. Comp. also 
Gal. i.1; 1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. i. 1; only in Rom. i. 1 we find «/Ayréc. — Instead of 
’Inoov Xpiorov, read, on preponderant evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch, Xprorow 
*Inoov. — Ver. 2 7H oicy év Kop.] is placed by B D* E FG, It. after ’Inoot ; so 
Lachm. and Tisch. No doubt rightly, since the common arrangement of the 
words is plainly open to the suspicion of transposition on grounds of grammar, 
whereas there is no reason why, if it stood so originally, it should have under- 
gone alteration. The hypothesis of Fritzsche, de conformat, N. T. Lachm. 1841, 
p. 44, that 7y.aou, év X. 71, had been left out, and then reinserted in the wrong 
place, is an arbitrary one, considering the weight of evidence on Lachmann’s 
side and seeing that the right place for the reinsertion would have been so un- 
mistakable. — te xa] Lachm.: «ai, according to BDGS&. But how easily re 
might be dropped without its being noticed !— Ver. 14. Riickert has pov after 
Oe, in accordance with A, 17, 57, al. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition 
from ver. 4. — Ver. 15. é8amrtica] A B C* 8, min. and several vss. and Fathers 
have éGarrio§nre ; so Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the immediate con- 
text in vv. 14, 16 led to the introduction of the active at a very early date (Syr. 
Tert.). — Ver. 20. rodrov after xécuov is wanting in very important witnesses. 
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. A mechanical addition from the forego- 
ing. — Ver. 22. onueiov] onueia, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Rick. Tisch. Scholz. 
is so decisively attested by A BCDEFG 8, min. and many vss. and Fathers, 
that we must regard the singular as introduced through the recollection of 
Matt. xii. 38 f., xvi. 4, al. The reading érifyrovorv in A points in the same di- 
rection. See the detailed justification of the plur. in Reiche, Commentar. crit. 
I, p, 121 ff. — Ver. 23, @vecr] Elz. : "EAAnot, against decisive evidence. Noted 
on margin, and then adopted in accordance with what goes before and follows, 
—Ver. 28. Before ra 7? ébvta Elz. has xa/, against preponderant testimony. Sus- 
pected by Griesb. ; deleted by Lachm, Scholz, Riick. and Tisch. Mechanical 
connection. — Ver, 29. tot Oecd] So Griesb. and all later editors, following de- 
cisive evidence. Airov in Elz. is an over-hasty correction, due to a failure to 
recognize the design of the repetition of r. Ocod, — Ver. 30, cogia juiv] Approved 
by Griesb, adopted also by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch, Elz. and Scholz, however, 
have juiv cogia, For the former order are ACDE®, min. Vulg. ms, It, 


CHAP. I., 1. 9 


Harl.** Or, Eus. al., further, B, which has cog. 7uév, and F G, which have # 
codia Huiv. ‘Huiv was put first, in order to join cogia closely to aro Ocvv ; while 
others marked the conception of the true wisdom by the article (F G), 


Vv. 1-8. Apostolic address and greeting. 

Ver. 1. KAnro¢ ardor. See on Rom. i. 1. A polemical.reference (Chrys- 
ostom, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, 
Osiander), which would be foreign to the winning tone of the whole exor- 
dium, would have been quite otherwise expressed by one so decided as 
Paul (comp. Gal. i. 1). — dvd 6A. Oeov] That his position as an apostle called 
by Christ was brought about by the will of God, was a truth so vividly and 
firmly implanted in his consciousness, that he commonly includes an expres- 
sion of it in the beginning of his Epistles. See 2 Cor. i. 13; Gal. i. 1; Eph. i. 
1; Col.i.1; 1 Tim. i.1; 2 Tim.i. 1. ‘Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam 
factus esset apostolus,” Bengel. Regarding d:d, see on ver. 9 and Gal. i. 1. — 
Kat Swobévyc | Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see 
xvi. 21). But the mere amanuensis as such has no share in the Epistle itself, 
which must, however, be the case with one who holds a place in the intro- 
ductory salutation. Since, moreover, in 1 and 2 Thess. we find two others 
besides Paul named with him in the superscription (who therefore could 
hardly both be mentioned as amanuenses), and even an indefinite number 
of ‘‘ brethren” in the Epistle to the Galatians, whereas in that to the Ro- 
mans the amanuensis—who is known from xvi. 22—does not appear as in- 
cluded in the superscription, we must rather suppose that Paul made his 
Epistle run not only in his own name, but also (although, of course, in a sub- 
ordinate sense) in the name of Sosthenes, so that the Corinthians were to re- 
gard the letter of the apostle as at the same time a letter of Sosthenes, who 
thereby signified his desire to impress upon them the same doctrines, admo- 
nitions, etc. This presupposes that Paul had previously considered and 
discussed with this friend of his the contents of the letter to be issued. 
Comp. on Phil. i. 1. Sosthenes himself accordingly appears as a teacher 
then present with the apostle and enjoying his confidence, but known to, 
and respected among, the Corinthians. There remains, indeed, the possi- 
bility that he may have also written the Epistle, but only in so far as we are 
in utter ignorance of who the amanuensis was at all. Had Timothy not al- 
ready started on his journey (iv. 17, xvi. 10), he would have had a place 
along with, or instead of, Sosthenes in the salutation of the Epistle ; comp. 
2 Cor. i. 1. —Theodoret and most commentators, including Flatt, Billroth, 
Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, indentify Sosthenes with the person so named in 
Acts xviii. 17 ; but this is rightly denied by Michaelis, Pott, Riickert, and 
de Wette. See on Acts, J.c. Without due ground, Riickert concludes that 
he was a young man trained up by Paul—a view least of all to be deduced 
from the assumption that he was the amanuensis of the letter. The very 
absence of any definite information whatever as to Sosthenes shows how 
utterly arbitrary is the remark of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and 
Estius, that it was a great proof of modesty in the apostle to name him 
along with himself. — 6 adeA¢é6¢] denotes nothing more special than Chris- 


10 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tian brotherhood (so also 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1, al.), not fellowship in the 
office of teacher. The particulars of the position of Sosthenes were well 
known to the readers. 

Ver. 2. Ty éxx2. 7. Oecd] Ocod is genitive of the owner. Comp. 77 Op, 
Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4. The expression is with Paul the standing theocratic 
designation of the Christian community, in which the theocratic idea of the 
Old Testament TAP presents itself as realized ; it is the rA%pwoe of this 
op. Comp. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9; 2 Cor. 1. 1; Gal. i. 13, al. —#yaop. 
év X. ’I.] adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to r. éxxd. r. Ceod 
(see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of r. 
éxxa. tT. Ocov. ‘* To the church of God, men sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is 
in Corinth.” How common it is to find a participle in the plural standing 
in an attributive relation to a collective singular, may be scen in Kiihner, 
Il. p. 43; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 39. TH obcy év Kop., however, is purposely 
placed after ijy:aop. x.t.A., because the thought is, that the church of God 
addressed does in itself and as such (not as Corinthian) consist of those 
~ sanctified in Christ. The dy:acudc is to be conceived as consecration to God 
in the Christian church (see above, tr. éxxd. tr. Ocov). Comp. on Rom. i. 7. 
This belonging to God as His own has its causal ground not out of, but iv 
Christ—namely, in His redemptive work, of which the Christians have be- 
come, and continue to be, partakers (perfect) by means of justifying faith 
(Eph. i. 4 ff. ; Heb. x. 10). Comp. Phil. i. 1. ’Ev X. ’I. givesto the yyaon. 
its distinetively Christian character.’—KAyroi¢g dyiow| added, in order to a 
properly exhaustive description of that experienced benefit of God’s grace of 
which the readers, as Christians, were assumed to be conscious ; the new ele- 
ment introduced here lies in «Ayroic. The call to the Messianic kingdom (con- 
ceived as issued effectually, comp. on Rom. viii. 28, and see Lamping, Pauli 
de praedestin. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 32 f.) is, according to the constant 
conception of the N. T. (Rom. i. 6 ; Gal. i. 6 not excepted), given by God 
(ver. 9, Rom. vili. 80, ix. 24, al. ; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 281) through the 
preachers of the gospel (Rom. x. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 14) ; see Weiss, dz0l. 
Theol. p. 886 f. — civ rac x.7.A.] does not belong to KAnroi¢ dyiow, so that 
the readers were to be made sensible of the greatness of the fellowship in 
which they, as called saints, stood (Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Becker, Hofmann). But 
it belongs, as necessarily follows from 2 Cor. i. 1, to the superscription as 
part of it (on civ, comp. Phil. i. 1) ; yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as @ 
catholic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others ; 
comp. Schrader) ; nor so that Paul shall be held, while greeting the Corin- 
thians, as greeting in spirit also the universal church (Osiander, comp. Chrys- 
ostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Billroth, Heydenreich, and others) ; nor yet 
so that by the émcad. 7. dv. t. Kup. were meant the separatists, in contrast to 
those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if ody 
mao. K.T.A. Were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without dis- 





. 


1[It also shows that the sanctification cording to the standing force of the phrase 
comes by virtue of union with Christ, ac- in Christ as used by Paul.—T. W. C.] 


CHAP. I., 2. 11 


tinetion (Kichhorn, Hinleit. HI. 1, p. 110, Pott) ; but so that the sense is in 
substance just that expressed in 2 Cor. i. 1 : ovy roic dyiowe maot Toi¢ obo év 
bAn tH ’Ayaia. See below on airay te cai yudv. The Epistle is primarily 
addressed to the Christians in Corinth ; not, however, to them merely, but 
at the same time also to the other Achaean Christians, and the latter are de- 
noted by waa: . . . yuov. A comma is to be put after dyiow. — roi¢ émixad. rt. 
év tr. Kup.] confessional designation of the Christians, Rom. x. 12f. ; Acts 
ii. 21. Respecting the N. T. idea of the invocation of Christ, which is not 
to be held as absolute, but as relative worship * (of Him as the Mediator and 
Lord over all, but under God, Phil. ii. 10 f.), see on Rom. x. 12. — airav 
te kal muav| is joined with rov Kupiov by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, 
Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Valckenaer, and 
others, including Billroth, Olshausen, Liicke (de invocat. Chr., Gotting. 
1843), Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 324), in such a way as to 
make it an epanorthosis or (see Wieseler) epexegesis of the foregoing judv. 
But apart from the fact that this juév in the habitually used Kipvog judév em- 
braces all Christians, and consequently aitév te Kal judv (juov being re- 
ferred to Paul and Sosthenes) would express something quite self-evident, 
and that, too, without any special significance of bearing,’ the position of 
the words is decisive against this view, and in favour of attaching them to 
mavti tér@, to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition. 
Comp. Vulg. : ‘‘ In omni loco ipsorum et nostro.” Tf, namely, ovv rao... 
nuav must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then 
ravti térw requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intend- 
ed. Now, this limitation is not already laid down by év Kopiv6w (Liicke, 
Wieseler), since it was precisely in the superscription that the need of deji- 
niteness in designating the readers was obvious, but it is‘expressly given by 
avTov Te Kal Hudv, in such a way, namely, that airdv refers to the Corinthians, 
who, however, are indicated not by ivév, but by aitév, because from the 
point where the widening of the address (civ maou x.7.2.) comes in, the Co- 
rinthians appear as third parties. Accordifgly the Epistle is addressed : 
To the Oorinthian Christians, and to all who, in every place that belongs to them 
(the Corinthians) and to us as well (Paul and Sosthenes), call upon the name 
of Christ. Every place in the province, namely, where Christians lived or 
a church existed (as e.g. in Cenchres, Rom. xvi. 1), was a place which be- 
longed to the Corinthians, a réro¢ aitoyv, in so far as the church at Corinth 
was the mother-church of the Christian body in Achaia; but each such 
place belonged also to Paul (and Sosthenes), in so far as he was the founder 
and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and all Achaia. It is quite in 
accordance with the ingenious subtlety of the apostle to give the designa- 
tion of the provincials in such a form, as to make his own authority felt 
over against the prerogative of those living in the capital (airdv). As in 


1 [The New Testament knows nothing of  avrav applies to the Corinthians. But in 


‘two kinds of worship.—T. W. C.] 

2 It is supposed to convey a polemical 
reference to the party-divisions. See Wie- 
seler, Z.c. This can only be the case if 


fact, according tothe view of Liicke and 
Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but 
must apply to the other Achaeans. 


12 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Rom, xvi. 18 airod cai éuod delicately expresses the community of love (comp. 
also 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem. 11 ; Soph. H/. 417 f.: sarpd¢ rot cov te capo), 
so here airéyv re kai juov the community of right. The objection that the 
sense in which they belonged to the Corinthians was different from that in 
which they belonged to Paul and Sosthenes (de Wette), fails to appreciate 
the point of the words. The offence which Hofm. takes at the reading re 
cai (as though it must be equivalent to cire) arises from a misunderstand- 
ing ; it is the usual co-ordinating re «ai, which here has not even the appear- 
ance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of eite. Comp., on 
the contrary, Hartung, p. 101 ; Baeuml., Partik. p. 225. Observe, besides, 
that re cai gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two gen- 
itives than the simple xai ; see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 165. Riibiger, 
krit. Unters. p. 62 f., has assented to our view.’ Comp. also Maier. Those 
who join ody ract x.7.A. to KAnroic ay. (see above) usually take airév re Kal Hu. 
as an analysis of the idea zavri : in every place, where they and where we 
(Paul and Sosthenes) are, i.e. elsewhere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius, 
Riickert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise ex- 
planation of zavri would be! In fact, it would be absurd ; for, since the 
subject is all (raot x.7.2.), in which the #ueic are thus already included, an 
analysis of it into aitoi (which the rdyrtec are surely already) and jyeic is 
utterly illogical. This applies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the 
toroc juav is held to be Corinth, and to refer to the strangers who come to 
Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred airév to the heathen 
lands, and 7uav to Judaga (Erasmus, Semler, Bolten ; similarly Schrader). 
Contrary to the text, as is also Wetstein’s opinion : ‘‘ P. suwwm locum vocat, 
ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclesiam fundaverat. Tacite se at- 
que Sosthenem . . . opponit peregrino falso doctori, qui in locwm non swum 
irrepserat.” Others refer év ravti . . . quov to the different meeting-places 
of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that 
the réro¢ udv would be the house of Justus (Acts xvii. 7), or, generally, 
the place where the church ‘had statedly assembled at first under Paul 
(Ewald) ; and the 767. airév the meeting-house of the Petrine party, per- 
haps the Jewish synagogue (Pott), or, in general, the other places of assem- 
bly of the new sections (Ewald). But the presupposition that the church 
was broken up into parties locally separated from each other (see, on the 
contrary, xiv. 23, xi. 17 ff.) has not a single passage in the Epistle to justi- 
fy it. Béttger, l.c. p. 25, holds, strangely, that airév applies to the Corin- 
thian Christians, and juav to those of Lower Achaia (among whom Paul is 
supposed to have written ; see Introd. § 3) ; and Ziegler, that airév applies 
to those in Corinth, juév to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas, 
Fortunatus, Achaicus (xvi. 17), and others. Hofmann propounds the pe- 
culiar view that xa? juév betokens that Paul was at home, and felt himself 
to be so, wherever Christ was invoked. Asif the reader would have been 
capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the sim- 


1 Also Burger in his (popular) Auslegung, Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthum u. Chris- 
tenth. p. 749. : : 


CHAP. I., 3-8. 13 


ple pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the 
slightest hint from the connection. 

Ver. 3. See on Rom. i. 7.’ 

Vv. 4-9. Conciliatory preamble, by no means without real praise (Hofmann), 
assuredly not ironical (Semler, comp. Mosheim), which would be unwise 
and wrong ; and not addressed merely to the party of Paul and that of 
Apollos (Flatt), which is at variance with ver. 2; but, as is alone in accord- 
ance with the character of Paul and with the words themselves, directed 
to the church as a whole under a persuasion of the truth of its contents,— 
bringing forward first of all with true affection what was laudable, so far as 
it existed, and lovingly leaving out of view for a time what was blame- 
worthy, but withal soberly keeping within the bounds of truth and tracing 
all up to God. 

Vv. 4, 5. Mov]? as in Rom. i. 8. — rdvrore] always, to be measured not 
strictly by the literal import of the word, but by the fervour of his constant 
love. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 f.; 2 Thess. i. 3. —ézi] ground of the thanks, 
Phil. i. 5 ; Polyb. xviii. 26.4; Valck. in loc. The grace of God, which had 
been bestowed on them, is described more precisely in ver. 5 according to 
its effects. — év X. ’I.] i.e. in your fellowship with Christ. By this is denoted 
the specifically Christian nature of the gift, in so far, namely, as it is not 
attained apart from Christ, but—otherwise it were a worldly gift—has in 
Christ, as the life-element of those who are its subjects, the distinctive 
sphere of its manifestation. Just in the same way ver. 5. —6ri] that you, 
namely, etc., epexegesis of éxi rH yap. x.7.4. — év ravri] without limitation : 
an all, in every point ; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18 ; Eph. ii. 4; Jas. 
ii. 5. To this Paul forthwith, and again with év (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4), adds 
the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at 
in all discourse and all knowledge—that 
is to say, so that no kind of Christian aptitude of speech, or of Christian 
intelligence, is wanting among you, but both-—the former outwardly com- 
municative aptitude, in virtue of which a mantis duvaric yvoow éeureiv (Clem. 
Cor. I. 48); and the latter, the inward endowment—are to be found with 
you richly in every form. This view, according to which 2édyo¢ is sermo, 
occurs in substance in the Greek commentators, in Calovius, Riickert, 
Neander, Hofmann, and many others, and is confirmed beyond a doubt by 
2 Cor. vill. 7, xi. 6. As to the different hinds of Christian utterance, comp. 
1 Cor. xii. 8. Adyo¢ is not therefore to be understood, with Billroth, de 
Wette, and Maier, of the doctrine preached to the Corinthians. Beza, Gro- 


Corinth : év ravti Adyw x. radon yvdoer : 


1 See also the elaborate dissertation on the 
apost. benedictory greeting by Otto in the 
Jahrb. fiir D. Theol, 1867, p. 678 ff. The origin 
of that greeting, however, is hardly to be 


traced back, as the author holds, to the’ 


Aaronic blessing, Num. vi. 25f. Otherwise 
it would always be ¢ripartite, and, in par- 
ticular, would not omit the characteristic 
é\eos. Now, the only Epistles in which it 
certainly occurs as tripartite, and with éAcos, 


are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim. 
and 2 John 3; also Jude 2(but with a pecul- 
iar variation). It wasonlyata later date 
that the Aaronic blessing passed over into 
Christian liturgic use Constitt. ap. i. 57. 18) ; 
but a free reminiscence of that blessing 
may already be contained in the greetings 
of those late Epistles. 

2 [Westcott & Hort omit this word, but 
apparently without reason.—T. W. C.] 


14 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tius, and others take Adyoe to be specially the donum linguarum, and yvooie 
the donum prophetiae, which, however, is not conveyed either in the words 
themselves or in the connection, and is, moreover, at variance with the sub- 
ordinate importance attached to the yAdcaa Aadeiv (chap. xiv.). Lastly, as 
to the running together of the two: év rdoy yvdcer tov Adyou (Schulz, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller), the very repetition of the zdoy, and the difference in point of 
idea between the two words, should have dissuaded its supporters from such 
a view ; for Ady. and yvéc. can as little be synonyms (Clericus, Pott) as 137 
and Nyt. Clement also, 1 Cor. 1, praises the former condition of the church 
with respect to ryv redeiav Kal adogaay yvodotr. 

Ver. 6. Kaféc] According as, introduces the relation of that happy condi- 
tion of things (év ravti éxdovticbyte . . . yvooer) to its cause. See on John 
xii, 34, xvi 2; 1 Cor.-v. 7; Eph. 1. 4); Philo i> 7G ohiatia ere 
paptipiov tow X.| characteristic designation of the Gospel, the publishers of 
which bear witness of Christ. Comp. 2 Tim.i. 8; Acts i. 8, iii. 15, al.; 
2 Thess. 1.10; 1 Pet. v. i. Comp. papr. tov Ocod, li. 1. — éBeBard0y] is ren- 
dered by most : zs confirmed,’ has been accredited (Mark xvi. 20; Rom. xv. 
8 ; Heb. ii. 3, al.); comp. also Riickert : ‘‘evinced as true by its effect on 
you ;” and Ewald: ‘‘ guaranteed among you by signs of the power of the 
Holy Spirit.” So, too, in substance, Hofmann. It is more in keeping, how- 
ever, with the logical relation of xafac x.7.2. to the foregoing, as well as with 
the BeBardoee of ver. 8 (comp. 2 Cor. i. 21; Col. ii. 7), to explain it of the 
gospel becoming firmly established in their souls (by stedfast faith), so that the 
opposite is expressed by the Johannine rdv Adyov obk Eyete pévovta év div 
(John v. 38). Comp. Billroth and de Wette. — év tyuiv] in animis vestris. 

Ver. 7. Result of rd wapt. tT. X. éBeB. év dyiv, consequently parallel to év 
mavti érdour. év avro. The negative expression py borepeioba év is conceived 
quite after the analogy of the positive zAourig. év (see on ver. 5), so that év 
denotes that in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence : so 
that ye in no gift of grace are behind (i.e. less rich than other churches.) 
Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p..484 D: ue év GAAw undevi pépet apeTtie botnpovvrac. 
Ecclus. li. 24. The sense would be different, if the words were pndevog 
xapicuatog (so that no gift of grace is lacking to you.) See Rom. iii. 22 ; Luke 
xxii. 85 ; John ii. 8. Ruhnk. ad Tim. p.51. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 2387 ; 
ad Soph. Aj. 782. Xdépioua is here to be taken (with Calvin and others, in- 
cluding Rosenmiiller, Pott, de Wette, Maier) in the wider sense of the spirit- 
ual blessings of Christianity generally, in so far as believers are made partakers 
of them by the divine grace through the rveiva dyov (Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
vii. 7) ; not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrower sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap. 
xii. ff.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following azexde- 
you. «.7.A. Makes the py borepeicba év undevi yapiouate appear as an ethical 
endowment ; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the 
aveykAhrove in ver. 8 does not suit the yapicuara in the narrower sense, 


1**Non de confirmatione externa verbi, Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of 
quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione oth ; Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, 
tnterna quae fit per testimonium Sp. St., ” of the miracles only. 


CHAP? 1408! 15 


but does suit all the more strikingly the moral character of the Christian 
gifts of the Spirit in general. The form of expression in the singular here 
stands as little in the way of this view (in opposition to Hofmann) as at 
Rom. i. 11, and is, in fact, necessitated by the negative form of the dis- 
course. Riickert, indeed, objects: ‘‘that Paul could not at all mean here 
those purely moral blessings, seeing that the Corinthians did not possess 
them.” The apostle, however, is not speaking of every individual, but of 
the church taken as a whole (comp. already Chrysostom and Theophylact) ; 
and, moreover, expresses himself with much caution in a negative way, so 
that he only needs to answer for the presence of a swufjicienter praeditum esse 
to stand comparison with other churches. — drexdeyou. «.7.2.] is a significant 
accompanying definition to what has gone before : as persons, who are not 
in any wise afraid of the revelation of Christ (1 Pet.i. 7 ; Col. iii. 3 f.) and 
wish it away, but who are waiting for it. This waiting and that afflux of 
grace stand in a mutual relation of action and reaction. Bengel says 
rightly : ‘‘ Character Christiani veri vel falsi, revelationem Christi vel ex- 
pectare vel -horrere.” The fact that there were among the Corinthians 
deniers of the resurrection (and consequently of the Parousia in its full 
idea)—which, we may add, might naturally enough cause this hope to 
become all the more vividly prominent in the case of the rest—does not 
take away from the truth of the words, which hold good of the church a 
potiort. Just as little can they (contrary to the winning tone of the whole 
preamble) have it as their design to terrify with the thought of the day of 
judgment (Chrysostom), or to censure the doubters (Grotius, Riickert), or 
even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians 
(Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither de nor the article, 
is not merely a temporal definition—consequently ‘‘ for the time” of the 
waiting (Hofmann)—any more than at Tit. ii. 13; Rom. vill. 23 ; Jude 
21. —amexd.] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Rom. vill. 19 ; 
Fritzsche in Friteschior. Opusc. p. 150 ff. The word does not indicate 
the element of longing (de Wette). See Rom. viii. 25; 1 Pet. i. 20. For 
the subject-matter, comp. Phil. iii. 20 ; Tit. ii. 13 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Luke xii. 36. 

Ver. 8. “Oc] refers to ’Iycot X., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of in- 
terpreters, assume, to the far-distant Oedc, ver. 4, -a view to which we are 
not compelled either by the ’Iyc. Xpiorod which follows (see below), or by 
ver. 9, seeing that the working of the exalted Christ is in fact subordinated 
to the will of God (iii. 23, xi. 8 ; Rom. viii. 34, a/.). Comp. Winer, p. 149 
[H. T. 196]. The apostle, however, is so full of Christ, as he addresses 
himself to his Epistle, that throughout the preamble he names Him in 
almost every verse, sometimes even twice. Comp. Rom. i. 1-7. — xai] also, 
denotes that which corresponds to the amexdéyecOa «.7.4., What Christ will 
do, — BeBatdce:| ornpife, Rom. xvi. 25; 1 Thess. iii. 138 ; 2Cor.i. 21. The 
future stands here not optatively (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope 
in the gracious working of Christ.’ —éwe réAove] applies not to the end of life 


1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, rect censure; asa hint that they were ca- 
and others, find in this expression an indi- Acvouevor and éyxAnpact viv vroxeiwevor, A 


16 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing r. dmoxa2. x.7.A. and the 
following év rH juépa «.t.A. clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianic 
period of the world’s history (the aidv oiroc, see on Matt. xiii. 32), which is to 
be ushered in by the now nearly approaching (vii. 29, xv. 51) Parousia. 
Comp. x. 11; 2 Cor. 1.13. It is the owrédea tov aiévoc, Matt. xiii. 39 f., 
xxiv. 8, xxvill. 20; comp. Heb. ix. 26. — dveyxAgrouc x.7.A.] result of the 
strengthening : so that ye shall be free from reproach in the day, etc. Comp. 
1 Thess. iii. 13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Matt. 
xii. 18 ; Phil. iii. 21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. 1. 4, p. 136 ff. Stallb. ad 
Plat. Rep. p. 560 D.— rod Kupiov x«.t.2.| The repetition of the noun in- 
stead of the mere pronoun is common in the classics also (Eliendt, ad 
Arrian. Exp, Al. i. 55 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1), and elsewhere in the 
N. T. (Winer, /.c. and p. 186 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2 Cor. 1.5; Eph. 
i. 13; Col. i. 15 f., al.) it has solemn emphasis. Comp. ver. 21.-—It is to 
be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp. 
Rom. viii. 33) is conditioned (2 Tim. iv. 7) by perseverance in the faith 
(through which justification is appropriated) and consequently rests on the 
imputation of faith (Rom. iv. 4 f.) ; but is nevertheless, in virtue of the 
moral character and power of faith, as also in virtue of sanctification through 
the Spirit, of a thoroughly moral nature (Rom. vi. 1 ff., viii. 1 ff.), so that 
the avéyxanroc at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as avaudpryroc, but as Kai7 
ktiow év XpiorG (2 Cor. v. 17), who, being divinely restored (Eph. ii. 10 ; 
Col. ii. 10) and progressively sanctified (1 Thess. v. 23), has worked out 
his own salvation (Phil. ii. 12) inthe consecration of the moral power of the 
new spiritual life (Rom. vii. 2f. ; Phil. i. 10 f., and now receives the Bpa- 
Beiov of his calling (Phil. iii. 14), the orédavog of the dixacoctvy (2 Tim. iv. 8), 
in the déga of everlasting life. 

Ver. 9. Ground of this confident hope. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 13; 1 Thess. 
v. 24; 2 Thess. ill. 8; Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. xi. 29. Were the feBaiworc on the 
part of Christ (ver. 8) not to take place, the divine call to the xowwvia rod 
viov avtov Would remain without effect, which would not be compatible with 
the faithfulness of God, from whom, the call comes, and who, by His call- 
ing, gives pledge to us of eternal salvation (Rom. viii. 30).—Riickert finds 
in d? ov, because God Himself is the caller, a veritable misuse of the prep- 
osition ; and others, as Beza and Rosenmiiller, explain it without cere- 
mony by i¢’ od, which D* F G in fact read. But Paul is thinking here in a 
popular way of the call as mediated through God. It is true, of course, that 
God is the causa principalis, but the mediating agency is also God’s, é& ob Kai 
dv ov ta ravta (Rom. xi. 36) ; hence both modes of representation may oc- 
cur, and dvd may be used as wellas i6, wherever the context does not make 
it of importance to have a definite designation of the primary cause as such. 
Comp. Gal. i. 1; Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, Pol. ii. p. 879 E. Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. I. p. 15 ; Bernhardy, p. 235 f.—The xo.vwvia rod viov abrod is the fel- 
lowship with the Son of God (genitive, as in 2 Cor. xi. 13 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Pet. 
i. 4),'¢.e. the participation in the filial relation of Christ, which, however, 


view the more inappropriate, when wecon- _ tle was the thought expressed with respect 
sider how natural and familiar to the apos- __ to all his churches. 


GHAP. slye10. Ws 


is not to be understood of the temporal relation of sonship, Gal. iii. 26 f. 
(kowwviav yap viov THY viobeciav éxddece, Theodoret), nor of ethical fel- 
lowship (Grotius, Hofmann, and many others), but, in accordance with the 
idea of the xajeiv which always refers to the Messianic kingdom, of fellow- 
ship of the glory of the Son of God in the eternal Messianie life,’—a fellowship 
which will be the glorious completion of the state of viofeoia (Gal. iv. 7). It 
is the dééa tév Téxvwv Tov Ocod (Rom. vill. 21), when they shall be ovyxAnpove- 
pot Tov Xpiorov, cbupopdar of His image, ovuBacirebovtes and ovpdokacbévtec, 
Rom. viii. 17 ; comp. vv. 23, 29 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14.; Col. 1. 4; Phil. iii. 20 
fyiecor. av. -28 1, +2 Tim. ii,’12. 

Ver. 10-iv. 21. First section of the Epistle: respecting the parties, with a 
defence of the apostles way of teaching. 

Vv. 10-16. Hvhortation to unity (ver. 10), statement of the character of their 
party-division (vv. 11, 12), and how wrong it was (vv. 13-16). 

Ver. 10. ‘‘ Hxhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling, 
exhortation I give to you,” etc. — adeAgoi] Winning and tender form of ad- 
dress, often introduced by Paul just at the point where he has a serious word 
to speak. Ver. 11, vii. 29, x. 1, xiv. 20, al. — did rov dvépuartoc x.7.2.] by 
means of the name, etc., while I point you to the name of Christ, which, in 

-truth, constitutes the one confession of all His disciples, and thereby set 
before you the motive to follow my exhortation. Comp. Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30 ; 
2 Cor. x. 1 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12. Were the meaning ev mandato Christi (Heu- 
mann, Semler, Ernesti, and Rosenmiiller), it would be expressed by év r@ 
ovou. (v. 4; 2 Thess. iii. 6, al.). —iva] design, and in this form of concep- 
tion, contents of the rapaxaao, as in xvi. 12, 15; 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5; 2 
Thess. ii. 17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels. — 76 aid Aéynte| agreement 
of confessional utterance, as opposed to the party-confessions of faith, at vari- 
ance with each other, ver. 12. Luther renders it appropriately : ‘‘ einerlei 
Rede fiihret.”” The consensus animorum is only expressed in the sequel (je 
dé katnptiou. K.T.A.) ; in the first instance it is the outstanding manifestation 
of the evil that Paul has in view. This in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, 
‘Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Heydenrcich and Billroth, who 
explain the phrase of this inward agreement, which Paul would have known 
well how to express by 76 aid gpovetv (Rom. xv. 5; Phil. 11. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 
11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as 
Thue. v. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed, but presupposed. More expres- 
sive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1: Aéyew &v kad rabré, to speak one and the same 
thing. — Kai uy 7 év bu. oxiouata] the same thought in prohibitive form (comp. 
Rom. xii. 14, a/.), but designating the evil forbidden more generally, accord- 
ing to its category. — re 0é K.T.A.| dé, but rather, but onthe contrary (see Har- 
tung, Partikell. I. p. 171 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 360; Baeuml. Partik. p. 
95), introduces what ought to be the case instead of the forbidden kai uy 
k.T.A. — Katynptiopévot] fully adjusted, established in the right frame (Vulg. 
perfecti ; Theophyl. rérecor). Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Gal. vi. 1 ; Heb. xiii. 
11; 1 Pet. v. 10 ; Luke vi. 40. When there are divisions in a society, the 





1 Comp. Weiss, didlische Theol. p. 310. 


18 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


katdpriove is wanting (2 Cor. xiii. 9 ; comp. xataprioudc, Eph. iv. 12) ; hence 
Greek writers also use xaraprifew in speaking of the establishment of right 
relations by the removal of disunion (as here), sedition, or the like, Herod. 
v. 28. 106 ; Dion. Hal. Antt. iii. 10. Whether any figurative reference, 
however, of xarypr. to the original sense of cyicuara, jfissurae, be intended 
(to make whole and good again what was broken or rent, comp. . Matt. iv. 
21; Mark i. 19; Esdr. iv. 12, 13, 16 ; Herod. v. 106), as Bos, Elsner, 
Valckenaer, Pott, Heydenreich, and others think, and as Luther, Calvin 
(‘‘apte cohaereatis”), and Beza, (‘‘coagmentati’”) express by their render- 
ings, may be doubted, because Paul does not more precisely and definitely 
indicate such a conception ; while, on the other hand, it was exceedingly 
common to use cyicua absolutely, and without special thought of its origi- 
nal material reference (Matt. ix. 16), to denote dissidiwm (John vii. 48, ix. 
16, x. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 18, and even xii. 25). — év r¢ abré voix.r.4.] the sphere, 
in which they were to be karypr. Comp. Heb. xiii. 21. Nove and yviun 
differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Chris- 
tians in Corinth thought differently (voic) on important matters, and in con- 
sequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan spirit different 
opinions and judgments (yvoun), and fought for these against each other, the 
TO avTo Aéyery Was wanting and cyiouara prevailed. In opposition to this, 
the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking * and judging ; 
the right state of things was to establish itself among them in duovoeiv and 
éuoyvopovery (Thue, ii. 97; Dem. 281. 21; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In épcdec, 
ver. 11, we have the manifestation of the opposite of both of these, of 
Christian sameness of thought and opinion. That sameness, therefore, does 
not preclude the friendly discussion of points of difference in thought and 
judgment, with a view to mutual better understanding and the promotion 
of harmony, but it doubtless does preclude party differences and hostility. 
"AudioBytovor pév yap Kat OC. ebvotav ot pidot Toic pidowc, EpiCovaer Dé ok Stagopot 
te kal éxOpot adaAgdac, Plat. Prot. p. 337 B. Many other interpreters take 
yvoun as referring to the practical disposition (to love ); whereas vovg denotes 
the theoretical understanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, 
who says : brav yap tiv abtyy riot ExouEr, un ovvartoucba O& Kata THY ayarny, 
Ta wév aiTa VOOUmEYV, Otiorduella Oé KaTa THY yvounv. But this separation 
between theory and practice is quite arbitrary ; and yrduy never means in 
the N. T. ‘‘ disposition,” but always (even in Rev. xvii. 13, 17) sententia, 
judicium. Comp. the classical ri¢ aiti¢ yvounc eiva, to have one and the same 
view, Thue. i. 118, i. 70. Eur. Hee. 127 : é« mac yvounc, Dem. 147. 1: dua 
judc yvoune yivecba, Isocr. Paneg. 38 : tiv abrav Exev yvounr, Plat. Ale. 2, p. 
139 A. The converse : éyévovto diya ai yvouat, Herod. vi. 109. 

Ver. 11. Motive for the foregoing exhortation. — iré tév XAdyc] comp. 
Rom. xvi. 10; Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 238]. What persons belonging to 
Chloe are meant, was as well known to the readers as it is unknown to us. 
Grotius and Valckenaer understood ‘‘ mortuae Chloes liberos ;” others gen- 


1 The sense of ‘‘ disposition” is wrongly Maier). This is not the case evenin Rom. 
attributed to vovs (Riickert, Neander, i. 28, xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17; see in loc. 


CHAP. I;, 12. » bgt) 


erally, ‘‘ those of her household ;” others, again, ‘‘ slaves,” as undoubtedly 
such genitives are sometimes to be explained by dovAvg (Schaef. ad Bos. Ell. 
p- 117 f.) ; comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 60 A. Chloe herself is commonly held to 
be a Corinthian Christian, members of: whose household had come to Eph- 
esus. It seems, however, more in accordance with apostolic discretion to 
suppose (with Michaelis) that she was an Hphesian well known to the Co- 
rinthians, members of whose household had been in Corinth and returned 
thence.—The name (familiar as a surname of Demeter) occurs also elsewhere ; 
Hor. Od. i. 23, iii. 9. 6 ; Long. Past. 7. We may add that Bengel remarks 
well on éd7A66) (comp. Col. i. 8): ‘‘exemplum delationis bonae nec sine 
causi celandae.” It was in fact the fulfilment of a duty of love. 

Ver. 12. Now what I mean (by this épidec év buiv eior) is this (which fol- 
lows), that, etc. Regarding the explicative Aéyw, common also in Greek 
writers, comp. Gal. iii. 17; Rom. xv. 8. Calvin and Beza understand it, 
making rovro retrospective : I say this, because, etc. But, not to speak of 
the less suitable meaning thus attained, rovro in all parallel passages points 
invariably forward (Gal. iii. 17; Eph. iv. 17; 1 Cor. vil. 29, xv. 50), ex- 
cept when, as in vil. 35, Col. ii. 4, @ clause expressive of design follows. — 
éxaotoc| Hach of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp. xiv. 26. 
Chrysostom says aptly : ob yap uépoc, aAAd 76 Trav émevéweto THE ExkAnoiac 7 Popa. 
— Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive IatAov x.r.4., for eivai tivog 
means to belong to any one, addictum esse. See Seidl. ad Hur. El. 1098 ; 
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 621 ; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 243 f.]. — Kyga] The Jewish 
name (89°25) is so usual with Paul (iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5, and see the critical 
remarks on Gal. i. 18) that it is only in Gal. ii. 7, 8 that we find Ilérpoc em- 
ployed by him ; hence the less may we regard Kyga here as taken directly 
from the lips of the Jewish Petrine party (Estius).—The order of the four 
names is historical, following that in which the parties successively arose.— 
For a connected review of them and the relative literature, see Introd. § 1. 
The following remarks may be added from the exegetical standpoint: (1) The 
Xpcorod and ver. 14 ff. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers 
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Riibi- 
ger, krit. Unters. p. 9) and many of the older commentators, including 
Michaelis, and based principally on iv. 6, that the three first names were 
fictitious merely, and used in order to avoid bringing forward by name the 
real heads of the parties. (2) There can be no reduction of the number of 
the parties below four, although many attempts have been made to bring to- 
gether not only the partisans of Paul and of Apollos (as having but a formal 
difference), but also the Petrine and the Christine parties (J. E. Chr. 
Schmidt, Bibl. f. Krit. u. Hxeg. I. p. 91; Baur in the Tid. Zeitschr. 1831, 
4, p. 61 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 291 ff., ed. 2 ; also Billroth, Lechler, 
and others) ; or else—which, however, is merely a drawing of them together 
in form—to reduce the four to two main parties, the apostolic and the Chris- 
tine (Neander, Jaeger, and Schenkel) ; or, lastly, by exegetical expedients 
(Ribiger), either to get rid of the Christ-party altogether (see below), or at 
least to take them out of the list of parties by assuming that they were ap- 
proved of by the apostle (Schott, with older interpreters). Paul, in fact, 





20 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

sets forth quite uniformly four definite diversities of confession standing in 
contrast, and then shows in ver. 13 how sad and how preposterous this state 
of division was.—In the face of this manifest mode of reckoning and dispos- 
ing of the parties by the apostle himself in this passage, several theories, 
respecting more particularly (3) the Christ-party, must be dismissed as un- 
tenable. Among these is (a) the view repeatedly brought forward from the 
days of Chrysostom :* ‘‘Mentionem eorum propterea fecit una cum illis, 
quod, cujusnam generis essent dissidia inter Cor. excitata, perspicue explicare 
non poterat, nisi ita, ut diceret, alios hunc, alios illum praeferre doctorem, 
aliis (recte quidem, 1 Cor. iii. 28) se Christi sectatores simpliciter appellan- 
tibus” (Schott, Jsag. 233). With respect to this, it is to be observed that 
li. 23 implies not the justification of those Aéyovtec: éy@ 62 Xpiotod, but the 
truth of the idea,’ from the abuse of which that fourth party arose which in 
the passage before us appears under a precisely similar condemnation to 
that of the other three. (0) The theory invented by Baur‘ in behalf of 
the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism (comp. also Lechler, p. 
386) : that the same party called themselves both rove Kyga, because Peter 
had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also rod¢ Xpuorod, be-. 
cause they held direct connection with Christ to be the main mark of true 
apostleship, and therefore counted Paul far behind the other apostles ;* 
that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of 
Peter (comp. Billroth and Credner, Hinl. sec. 182 ; also Reuss, and especial- 
ly Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 25 f.). (¢) The opinion of Becker, 
that the Christine party were Jewish-Christians, who had attached them- 
selves to the followers of Peter that had come from a distance to Corinth, 
but, as having been converted by Paul and Apollos, had called themselves 
not after Peter, but after Christ. (d) Riibiger’s view, according to which the 
Christ-party is purely a creation of the exegetes, éy@ d Xpiorov being the ut- 
terance common to the three parties ; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance 


1 He, however, holds that Paul added 
‘Sey 5é Xptotov” Kat oixobey (7.€. ad’ eavTov, 
as Theophylact has it), BovAduevov Baputepov 
To é€ykAnwa torjoar Kai Sega ovVTW Kal TOV 
Xptotov eis wépos SoOévTa Ev, ci Kal pH OUTWS 
€molovy TovTo éxecvot. Comp. also Theodoret, 
who lays stress on the special wisdom of 
this procedure. 

2 The rightness of the confession: éya dé 
Xprotod, considered in and by itself, explains 
also why Clement, 1 Cor. 47, mentions only 
the other three parties and not the Christ- 
party as well. He is speaking against the 
attachment to human party-leaders. He 
might indeed, in some way suitable to the 
connection of his exhortation, have brought 
in the Christine party (which he doubtless 
would have done, if they had been as bad 
as they have been made out to be of late), 
but there was no necessity for his doing so, 
Hence it is unwarrantable to infer (with 
Rabiger) the non-existence of a special Chris- 


tine party from its non-mention. Origen 
also does not quote the éya 6& Xprorod with 
the rest of the passage in one instance, al- 
though he does in another. 

3 See Beyschlag, p. 225 ff.—Hilgenfeld (see 
his Zeéttschr. 1865, p. 241) calls Baur’s disser- 
tation of 1831, ‘“ the ancestral stronghold of 
our whole criticism.” If so, it is a win, 
like so many other ancestral strongholds. 
It could not so much as stand firm against 
the simple words éy® 6€ Xprorod, into which 
Baur put a meaning as if Paul had written : 
éym 6& Tay amootéAwy Xptatod. The con- 
fession éym dé Xprorod necessarily transcends 
all apostolic authority, and excludes it. 

4 Comp. Hilgenfeld, who holds that they 
were immediate disciples of Christ, who 
sought to establish the exclusive authority 
of the original apostles, denying to Paul 
the Xpucrod civar, See also Hilgenfeld in his 
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 165 f. 


A ill 


CHAP, 1.,\12. 21 


to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, ‘‘ that they made 
participation in Christ dependent on different teachers, each holding that 
they, inasmuch as they belonged to a particular teacher, had the real and 
true Christ,—a better Christ than the others.” This explanation, if we 
judge in accordance with the preceding elements in ver. 12, is an exegetical 
impossibility. It has been already well said by Calovius : ‘‘ Et illi, quia 
Christo Christianos se dicebant, guatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo 
nomine sibi solum appropriate, schismatis rei erant.”” Since they are ranked, 
just as the others, under the category of the cyicwara and épidec (vv. 10, 11), 
and their fault is set before them as before the others, ver. 18, by peuép. 6 
Xpioréc, we cannot even characterize them, with Eichhorn, as newtrals.—To 
name Christ as their Head was so extremely natural for a party who, as con- 
trasted with the others, wished to keep themselves free from all authority of 
human teachers (see Introd. § 1 ; also Riickert, Bleek, Hinl., Hofm. 16 f.), 
that there is no need whatever for any attempt at a different explanation ; 
such as Eichhorn’s imagination, that they rested upon the sayings of Jesus 
in the Protevangelium ; or the view of Grotius, Witsius, Wetstein, and Zieg- 
ler, that they had heard Christ themselves,’ or at least their founder had (if 
the former, how disproportionately small must their number needs have 
been ! and if the latter, they would surely have named themselves after their 
founder, since Peter, too, was a personal disciple of Christ). Equally unde- 
serving of acceptance is Storr’s view (Opusc. II. p. 252 ff.), adopted by 
Rosenmiiller, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp. also Bertholdt, 
Hinl. VI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves tov Xpucroi, as followers 
of James the brother of Christ. This is an empty conjecture, not to be sup- 
ported by ix. 5, xv. 9; and it has, besides, especially this against it, that 
the followers of the venerated James would have had no ground, as distin- 
guished from the other parties, for not calling themselves oi rod ’IaxéBov or 
oi Tov adeAdov Tov Kupiov, and that James also would have been mentioned 
with the rest in ili. 22, as well as in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, if the Christ-party had 
not referred themselves directly to Christ.—This claim, moreover, of a di- 
rect relation to Christ as regards His exclusive authority, found its sufficient 
ground and justification in the general acquaintance with the doctrine and 
work of Christ, which was owing to the living presence of the gospel tid- 
ings inthe churches. There is no evidence in the Epistles themselves of any 
other and peculiar connection with the Lord being laid claim to by the 
Christ-party. This holds especially of Schenkel’s view, that the Christ-party, 
consisting of Jewish-Christians from Asia Minor with theosophic training, 


had asserted a supernatural connection with Christ through visions and reo- 


elations, their spiritual condition consequently having its analogues at a 
later date in Cerinthus, Marcion, the Montanists, and the like ; and that 
this party had its continuation in those who opposed the presbyters in Clem- 


1 This view is taken up again by Thiersch, with Pharisaic views, proud of their Hebrew 
d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 143 ff. He descent and of their having known Christ 
regards the Christ-party as personal disciples in the flesh, disputing the apostleship of 
of Christ, who had come to Corinth from Paul, etc. 

Jerusalem and probably also from Rome, 


22 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ent’s Epistle. Schenkel’s theory (defended also by Grimm in the Jit. Bl. 
zur allg. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 82) bases itself especially on the passages ix. 
1; 2 Cor. x. 7, xii. 1. To explain these, however, there is no need to sup- 
pose any allusion to theosophic opponents, or any reference to the Christ- 
party at all, since Paul—more especially if they had been a party standing 
in such (fanatical) antagonism in point of principle to himself—would have 
combated them directly and in detail, and that in the section of the Epistle 
which deals expressly with the party-divisions (down to iv. 21).* And to 
connect them with the opponents of the presbyters in Clement is all the 
more arbitrary, because that writer, while finding a parallel to the factions 
which he blames in the parties of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, makes no ref- 
erence whatsoever to the Christ-party,—a silence which is eloquent enough 
to make us hesitate in ascribing to them any such extreme and dangerous 
character as some have lately imputed to them, and to incline us rather to 
the view of their fundamental principle being one in itself sound, but per- 
verted in its application by party-spirit. In addition to de Wette, Lutter- 
beck, and Maier, Goldhorn and Diihne agree in substance with Schenkel, 
seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of Jewish-Alex- 
wndrian philosophy in the Christ-party ; just as Kniewel (comp. Grimm) 
regards them as forerunners of the Gnostics. According to Ewald, they 
are the adherents of some unknown teacher of Hssene views, who, ‘‘ found- 
ing, doubtless, on some special evangelic writing, and in accordance there- 
with exalting the example of Christ personally above all else, disapproved 
of marriage ;” they were, in truth, the jirst Christian monks and Jesuits.” 
But it is very doubtful whether the rejection of marriage in chap. vil. should 
be traced precisely to the Christ-party ; and, apart from this, there is not 
in the Epistles to the Corinthians a single vestige of the phenomena of Hssene 
Christianity, or in particular of Essene asceticism, as at Rome and Colossae ; 
while, on the other hand, the rejection of marriage does not appear among 
the Romans and Colossians who held Essene views. Comp. on vii. 1.— 
Lastly, after this examination of the different views entertained regarding 
the Christ-party, the question whether they were Jewish (as commonly held) 
or Gentile Christians answers itself to this effect, that they were composed of 
both elements, as also were the adherents of Paul and of Apollos. For we have 
not the slightest ground for assuming that, when the division in the church 
arose upon matters turning on the respect due to individual men, it was 
either Jewish Christians alone, or Gentile Christians alone, who gave them- 
selves to the idea of renouncing the acknowledgment of any human teacher, 





and seeking instead to be roi Xpuctoi. 


1 The force of this argument is doubtless 
evaded by the assumption, that the leaders 
of the party had probably not developed 
their hurtful influence until after the ar- 
rivalin Corinth of our first Epistle. But 
this is simply an unwarranted evasion. 

2 According to Ewald’s Gesch. d. apost. 
Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 8, they readily allowed 
themselves to be carried away by the zeal 


This holds good in particular against 


for the law:of their Pharisaic brethren, and 
became a support for their position. Those 
of the Christ-party with Pharisaic tenden- 
cies were joined, too, by some who boasted 
that they had once known Christ Himself 
familiarly, nay, that they had seen Him 
when risen from the dead, so that they laid 
claim to apostolic estimation. 


CHAP. I., 12. 23 


Neander, who makes the Christ-party to be Gentile Christians, of a certain 
philosophic culture and of rationalistic tendency, to whom Christ appeared 
as a second, perhaps greater, Socrates, but who could not bring themselves 
to accept the doctrine of Christ in the form given to it by the apostles, and 
sought rather by philosophic criticism, which they exercised also on the 
doctrine of the resurrection (chap. xv.), to separate, possibly with the help 
of a collection of the sayings of the Lord, the pure teaching of Christ from 
the mass of received material. In how totally different a way must Paul 
have come forward against any such syncretistic rationalism ! See, besides, 
in reply to this, Beyschlag, p. 220 ff. Altogether, there were but few men 
of philosophic training who had come over to Christianity at Corinth (ver. 
26) ; and those who had at least a philosophic tendency found the food for 
which they sought with Apollos. And it isa groundless assumption to 
maintain that what Paul says against worldly wisdom (chap. i. 2) is spoken 
with a polemic reference to the Christ-party (this in opposition to Schenkel, 
Jaeger, Goldhorn, Dihne, Kniewel, and others) ; see, on the contrary, chap. 
iii. and iv. 6. In like manner, too, it is arbitrary, and in any case unsafe 
to proceed, from the point at which Paul passes from discussing the state 
of division in the church to speak of other existing evils (from chap. v. on- 
wards), to apportion the latter among the several parties, and by this 
method, as well as by means of expressions and details from the second 
Epistle, to depict the character more especially of the Christ-party, whom 
Jaeger ' makes in this manner to appear in the most damaging light, while 
Osiander * treats them prejudicially in another way, finding in them the orig- 
inators of sectarian Ebionitism. Beyschlag, too, in his investigation, pro- 
ceeds by the same uncertain path, putting together the characteristics of 
the Christ-party especially from the second Epistle. According to him they 
were Judaists, although free from Judaistic errors in doctrine, who depre- 
ciated the apostle Paul, but prided themselves on their Hebrew origin, their 
labours and sufferings for Christ, their more precise historical acquaintance 
with and information regarding Christ, whom they had known personally, 
as also on their visions and revelations of Him. In connection with this 
view, Beyschlag is forced to assume that it was only in the interval between 
the first and second Epistle that the Christ-party had developed such keen 
and personal antagonism to the apostle,—an assumption made also by Hil- 
genfeld. If, notwithstanding this development of hostility, they are to be 
taken as Judaists free from Judaistic anti-Pauline doctrine, we stand con- 
fronted by a complete anomaly in the history of the antagonism between 
the Judaistic and the Pauline currents in the apostolic church, so far as that 
is known to us from other quarters. And it seems the less possible to ex- 





1He depicts them as wealthy Jewish 
Christians, familiar with Greek science, who 
professed attachment to the spirit of Chris- 
tianity alone, but concealed under this 
mask lawlessness and immorality, and 
were deniers of the resurrection. 

2 Originating, according to him, from the 
Petrine party, they had, while holding fast 


to the idea of Christ being the Supreme 
teacher, fallen into a one-sided way of con- 
sidering only His appearance as a man on 
earth, and more especially His teaching, 
and of allowing the theocratic aspect of 
the Lord’s life and work to pass more out 
of sight. 


24 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


plain this anomaly by the supposition of a cunning reticence on the part of 
the persons in question, the more we see how bitter and passionate their 
opposition to Paul must have been, and the more we find it difficult—con- 
sidering their cunning—to perceive why they should not have contented 
themselves with making common cause with the Petrine party, instead of 
forming a distinct faction of their own. (A) 

Ver. 18. Meyépiora 6 Xpioréc] affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel ; 
so tivéc as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory (as commonly taken), set- 
ting forth the tragical result of the aforesaid state of party-division, ver. 12, 
and that with arresting emphasis from the absence of any connective parti- 
cle : Christ is divided! 7.e. in place of being whole and undivided, the One 
common Christ of all, He is broken up into different party-Christs! Such, 
that is to say, is the actual appearance of things when, of several parties 
mutually exclusive of one another, each seems to have its own separate 
Christ. The reproach here conveyed suits the Christ-party also (against 
Ribiger), just as forming a party, but not them alone (Hofmann). The in- 
terrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom : Js Christ divided ? taken - 
as a question of surprise, has nothing against it linguistically (see esp. 
Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objection that it is only with 
the following uf that the text, gives us to recognize the beginning of the 
interrogative address.?,> Had Paul intended peuép. 6 X. as a question, it 
would have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry 
on the same form of interrogation, and say : # IlabAog éor. iz. du. The text, 
I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting Xpioréc of the corpus Chr. 
mysticum, 1.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others ; rivéc in Theodoret), 
or even of the doctrina Chr., which is not varia et multipler (Grotius, Mos- 
heim, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller). — p7 TatAoc x.t#.] Paul surely was not, 
etc. From this point on to ver. 16 the incongruous nature of the first party- 
confession of faith is specially exposed. Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘ Crux et 
baptismus nos Christo asserit ; relata : redimere, se addicere.” The two 
questions correspond to the mutual connection between believing and being 
baptized. — brép| on behalf of, in the sense of atonement.* Comp. on Gal. i. 
4; Eph. v. 2. —eic¢ 76 dvoua] in reference to the name, as the name of him 
who is to be henceforth the object of the faith and confession of the indi- 
vidual baptized. Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 19 and Rom. vi. 3.—There was no 
need of a single word more regarding the jirst of these two questions ; the 


1The conception is not that Christ is 
broken up into parts or fragments, so that 
the one party should possess this, the other 
that, part (see Baur, de Wette, Riickert, 
Calvin, etc., with Chrysostom and Theo- 
phylact) ; for each party gave itself out as 
the possessor of the whole Christ, not 
simply of a part, He standing to it in the 
relation of its Lord and Head. To this 
conception corresponds, too, the éya dé 
Xpicrov, instead of which it would not 
have been necessary that it should run, 
€xov 0 Xpioros, aS Hofmann objects, 


“ [But compare the usage in 2 Cor. iii. 1, 
where the particle is given only in the 
second question.—T. W. C.] 

3 Lachm. reads epi vuev, instead of vrép 
tiporv, following only B D*; too weakly at- 
tested, and deserving of rejection also on 
this ground, that Paul always uses vuzép 
(even in 1 Thess. v. 10) where the death of 
Christ is placed in relation to persons, for 
whom He died. Comp. on xv. 8, which is 
the only certain passage in Paul’s writings 
where vzép occurs with an abstract term. 
See also Wieseler on Gal. i. 4. 


CHAP. I., 14-17. 25 


answer to it was so self-evident. 
remarks to make, vv. 14-16. 

Vv. 14, 15. God be thanked, that I baptized only a very few among you ! 
Accordingly no room has been left for the reproach being brought against 
me, as it might otherwise have been, that I had baptized into my own name ! 
‘¢Providentia divina regnat saepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognosci- 
tur” (Bengel). Riickert finds fault with the weakness of this proof, since it 
was surely the same thing whether Paul had baptized personally or through 
his assistants. But unjustly. For, since Paul was not generally in the 
habit of baptizing in person, had he himself baptized many in Corinth, this 
might undoubtedly have been made use of afterwards by perverse minds for 
the possible slander that there was a specialty in the case, that he had bap- — 
tized with his own hand in Corinth, because he did it into his own.name,—a 
purpose for which, of course, he could not have employed others. Hofmann 
suggests wrongly : they might have interpreted it, as though he had wished 
- to place the persons concerned ‘‘in a peculiar relation” to himself. This 
imported indefiniteness is against the definite sense of the words. Just as 
he had said before, that it was not he who had been crucified for them in 
place of Christ, so he says further, that they had not been baptized into his 
name instead of the name of Christ. But the two points just show how 
wholly absurd the confession éy& yév eius Tlabaov is, because it would have 
such absurd premisses. — Kpiorov| See Acts xviii. 8. —Tdiov] See on Rom. 
Xvi. 23. — iva w#| is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as : so 
that not, but it denotes the design, arranged in the divine providential lead- 
ing, of the oidéva tu. éBaxtica (comp. ver. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 9, al.). 

Ver. 16. Another Corinthian family baptized by him occurs to his mind. 
He adds it conscientiously, and then cuts off any possibility of his being re- 
proached with untruthful omission by Aciédv oix oida x.7.A. Regarding 
Stephanas, we know nothing save from xvi. 15, 17. — Aoév is the simple 
ceterum, otherwise, besides that. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; fre- 
quent in Greek writers also after Polybius. 

Vv. 17-31. Paul justifies the simplicity of his way of teaching by the contents 
of the gospel. This, like all that follows on to iv. 21, is directed primarily: 
against the pride of wisdom displayed by the party which certainly threat- 
ened most danger in the circumstances of the Corinthian church,—the party, 
namely, of Apollos (not that of Christ) ; see iii. 4, iv. 6. As to the Petrine 
and the Christine-party, there is no special entering into details ; it is only 
in passing that the judgment is extended so as to include them also (see iii. 
22). 

Ver. 17. Rapid and skilful transition (comp. Rom. i. 16) to this (ov yap... 
evayy.),' and theme of the section (oik év codia. . . 


But as to the second, the apostle has some 


Xptorov). — ov yap «.T.A. | 


1 Suggested naturally by what had been 
said in vy. 14, 16, and without any ironical 
side-glance at those who had prided them- 
selves on their daptizers (Calovius) ; in par- 
ticular, not levelled at boastings on this 
ground on the part of Jewish-Christians 


who had been baptized by Peter (Hof- 
mann); nor yet against teachers ‘* qui prae- 
textu ceremoniae gloriolam venantur”’ (Cal- 
vin and Osiander). Such polemical refer- 
ences are dragged in without warrant in the 
TOXU, 


26 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was 
teaching, Paul recognized that baptizing, as an external office and one that 
required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostolic tr7- 
pérae (Acts xiii. 5), in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away 
from following out that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very 
needful and salutary division of duties, considering the multitude of those 
converted by him! Peter, too, acted in the same way (Acts x. 48), and 
‘perhaps all the apostles. Nor was this contrary to Christ’s command in 
Matt. xxviii. 19, seeing that, according to it also (comp. Luke xxiv. 47 ; 
Mark xvi. 15), teaching was the main business of the apostolic office, while 
the baptismal command was equally fulfilled by baptism performed by 
means of others authorized by the apostles..— oi... a42’] is not here, 
any more than elsewhere, to be taken as equivalent to non tam... quam 
(Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, and others ; 
comp. also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 ff. 
[E. T. 621 ff.] ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 9 f.) ; and the absoluteness of the nega- 
tion is not at all to be set down to the account of the strong rhetorical 
colouring (Riickert, comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 306 [E. T. 356]). Zo 
baptize was really not the purpose for which Christ sent Paul, but to preach 
(Acts ix. 15, 20, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16-18) ; in saying which it is not implied 
that he was not authorized to administer baptism (ei¢ wav yap Td peifov areo- 
TaAn, ard J8 TOU Kai Td EXaTTOV évepyeiv ovK éxwAbOy, Theophylact), but sent a 
order to baptize he was not. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophy- 
lact. —oti« év codia Adyov] does not belong to azéor. (Storr, Flatt), which 
would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to evayyerivecbar, 
as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objec- 
tive, attaching to the object (Kiihner, II. § 714. 1; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
257 ff.), negativing actually the év codia : hence not w%. That codia Adyov is 
not the same as Adyoc odgoc, A. cecodicuévog (Erasmus, Grotius, and many 
others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes cogia as the main concep- 
tion, may be seen in Winer, p. 221 f. [E. T. 296 f.] : to preach without wis- 
dom of speech, without the discourse having a philosophic character,—as de- 
sired by the Hellenic taste. We are not to apply this, however, to the 
philosophic contents of the teaching (Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others), 
but to the form, which consists in the clothing of the doctrine in philosophic 
garb, in speculative skill, argumentative reasoning, illustration, elaboration 
of the matter, and the like, together with the effect which this, from the 
nature of the case, may have upon the doctrine itself. For it followed as a 
matter of course from Paul’s being sent by Christ, that he was not to preach 
a doctrine of this world’s wisdom (as did Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, etc.) ; 
what he had to do was to deliver the substance of the evayyeAifeobac—which 


1 According to Ritschl, althath. Kirche, p. the baptism of those three in ‘had light, 
869, baptism was performed on the others Stephanas would not have occurred to him 
by those three, who themselves had been only by way of afterthought. Besides, there 
first baptized by Paul, and who had be- must have been baptized converts there be- 
come overseers. Against this viewit may fore a presbytery could be erected. Comp. 
be at once urged, that if he had regarded Acts xiv. 23, 


CHAP. I., 18. 27 


is in truth given for all cases alike—without casting it in any philosophic 
_ mould ; his speech was not to be év cogia, lest its substance should lose its 
essential character. This substance was the crucified Christ, about whom he 
had to preach, not in the style and mode of presentation used by the wisdom 
of this world,—not in such a way that his preaching would have been the 
setting forth of a Christian philosophy of religion. Even the dialectic ele- 
ment in Paul’s discourses widely differs from anything of this sort. — iva 
Ly Kevo «.7.A.| alm of the evayy. ovK év ood. 2.: in order that the cross of 
Christ might not be emptied (comp. Rom. iv. 14) ofits essence divinely effectual 
Jor salvation (Rom. i. 16). The cross of Christ—that Christ was crucified 
(and thereby won salvation for us),—this fact alone was the pure main sw- 
stance (‘‘nucleus et medulla,” Calovius) of the apostolic preaching, and as 
such has the essential quality of proving itself in all believers the saving 
power of God, and of thereby, in the way of inward living experience, 
bringing to nought all human wisdom (vv. 18, 19 ff.). Now, had the cross 
of Christ been preached év cogia Adyov, it would have been emptied of its 
divine and essential power to bless, since it would then have made common 
cause with man’s wisdom, and therefore, instead of overthrowing the latter, 
would have exalted it and made it come, totally alien in nature as it was, 
in place of itself. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum 
admittit.”” — With marked emphasis, 6 oravpd¢ rod Xpiorov is put last. 

Ver. 18. Establishment of the foregoing iva py... Xpictov. Were, 
namely, the doctrine of the cross, although folly to the unbelieving, not a 
power of God to believers, it would be impossible to speak of aiva py KevobA 
of its substance, the cross of Christ, as the aim of the evayy. obk év o. 2. — 
The écrit with the dative expresses the actual relation in which the Adyo¢ 
stands to both ; it is for them 7m fact (not, as might be thought, simply in 
their judgment) the one and the other. —roi¢ aroAdvu.| to those who are sub- 
ject to (eternal) azéAea. Comp. 2 Cor. 11. 15, iv. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 10. The 
present participle’ betokens either the certainty of the future destruction (Bern- 
hardy, p. 371), or it brings the being lost before us as a development which 
is already taking place in them ; just as roic cwtou., those who are saved unto 
Messianic bliss. (B) From xv. 2, Rom. v. 9, 10, viii. 24, al., also Eph. ii. 5-8, 
the former mode of conceiving it seems to be the correct one ; comp. ii. 6. 
Paul designates in this way the believers and unbelievers, dé row réAove Tac 
mpoonyopiac tifeic, Theodoret. He has certainly (Riickert) conceived of both 
classes as predestinated (ver. 24 ; Rom. viii. 29, ix. 11, 19, 22 f. ; Eph. i. 4 
f. ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, al.) ; but this point remains here out of view. — popia] 
This doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) an absurdity (uwpia 
te kal, adoyia, Plat. Hpin. p. 983 E; Dem. 397, pen.). Why? see ver. 22. 
Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 3. Billroth’s answer is un-Pauline. — jyiv] is not put last 
out of modesty (Billroth), but because the emphasis of the contrast lies on 
the idea of roi¢ cwfou. Comp. Eur. Phoeniss. 1738. Pors. : édatverv tov 
yépovra pw’ ék ratpac. — dbvauic Oecov] Comp. on Rom. i. 16. That doctrine is 

1Bengel’s ingenious exposition: “qui bivio, et nunc aut perit aut salvatur,”’ is 


evangelium audire coepit, nec ut perditus wreckedon the word july, which the audire 
nec ut salvus habetur, sed est quasi in  coepit does not suit. 


28 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


to them (to their conscious experience) God’s power, inasmuch, that is to say, 
as God works mightily in them through the saving tidings of the Crucified. 
The contrast is stronger than if it were cogia Gcov, and is also logically cor- 
rect ; for divauic Ocov necessarily presupposes the opposite of pwpia, because 
the power of God brings about enlightenment, repentance, sanctification, 
love, peace, hope, etc. Comp. Ignat. ad Hph. 18, where it is said of the 
cross, that it is to us ocwrypia K. Coy aidvioe. 

Ver. 19. Establishment from Scripture of the foregoing roi¢ dé cwfou. K.T.A. : 
for were the word of the cross not God’s power for the cwfduevoc, God could 
not say of it in the Scriptures : ‘‘I will destroy,” etc.—In the passage, Isa. 
xxix. 14 (a free quotation from the LXX., the difference between which and 
the original Hebrew is unessential), Paul, in accordance with the typical sig- 
nificance attendant on the historical sense,’ recognizes a prediction of the 
powerful working of the doctrine of the cross as that through which God 
would bring to nought and do away with the wisdom of man, 7.e. empty it 
of its estimation. The justification of this way of viewing it lay in the 
Messianic character of O. T. prophecy in general, by virtue of which the his- 
torical sense does not exhaust the design of the utterances, but leaves open 
higher references to the further development of the theocratic relations, and 
especially to the Messianic era, which references are to manifest themselves 
historically by the corresponding facts of later date, and so be recognized 
from the standpoint of their historical fulfilment. See more in detail, on 
Matt. i. 22 f. (c) Christ Himself confirms the Messianic reference of the pro- 
phetic utterance, Matt. xv. 8.—Regarding the distinction between cogia and 
civeote (intelligence), see on Col. i. 9. 

Ver. 20. What this passage of Scripture promises, has occurred : Where is 
a wise man, etc. The force of these triumphant questions (comp. xv. 55, and 
see on Rom. ili. 27) is : clean gone are all sages, scribes, and disputers of this 
world-period (they can no more hold their ground, no longer assert them-» 
selves, have, as it were, vanished) ; God has made the world’s wisdom to be 
manifest folly!’ Asthe passages, Isa. xix. 12, xxxiii. 18, were perhaps before 
the apostle’s mind, the form of expression used rests probably on them. Comp, 
Rom. iii. 27, where é&exAe/o6y is the answer to the rov ; according to classi- 
cal usage, Valckenaer, ad Hur. Phoen. 1662. Ewald holds ver. 20 to bea 
citation from a lost book ; but we are not necessarily shut up to this conclu- 
sion by the ypauwaretc, although the term does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s 
writings, for this exclamation might easily have been suggested to him by 
the ypauparixot of Isa. xxxiili. 18. The three substantives cannot well be 
taken as alluding to the synagogal phrases 120 Son and jwv7 (Lightfoot, 
Vitringa), since Paul was not writing to a purely Jewish-Christian commu- 
nity. Attempts to explain the distinction between them have been made in 
a variety of ways. But it is to be noted that in what immediately follows 


1 According to which the referenceis not judgment under Sennacherib, in which the 
generally to the final catastrophe of the wisdom of the rulers and false prophets 
present state of things in Israel before the of Israel was to be confounded and left 
dawn of the Messianic period (Hofmann), helpless. 
but, as the context shows, to the penal 


OHAP. I., 20. 29 


_ tHv oodiav represents all the three ideas put together ; that ypayparetc, again, 
is always (excepting Acts xix. 35) used in the N. T. (even in Matt. xiii. 52, 
xxii. 34, where the idea is only raised to the Christian sphere) of scribes in 
the Jewish sense ; that the ovfyrAr7¢ (Ignat. ad Eph. 18), which is not found 
in the Greek writers or in the LXX., is most surely interpreted disputant, in 
accordance with the use of ovfyré» (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14; Luke xxiv. 15; 
Acts vi! 9, ix. 29, al.) and ovlqrnoue (Acts xv. 2, 7, xxviil. 29) ; and further, 
that disputing was especially in vogue among the Sophists (i oiduevor rave 
eldévat, Xen. Mem. i. 4. 1). And on these grounds we conclude that cogde¢ 
as to be taken of human wisdom in general, as then pursued on the Jewish side 
by the scribes, and on the Hellenic side by the sophistical disputers, so that, in 
this view, ypauu. and ovgyr. are subordinated. to the general codd¢ in respect 
to matters of Jewish and Hellenic pursuit. Many exegetes (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Oceumenius, and others, including Storr, -Rosen- 
miiller, Flatt, Billroth) depart from the view now stated in this respect, that 
they would limit codéc¢ to the heathen philosophers,’ which, however, is pre- 
cluded by the codiav embracing all the three elements (comp. also ver. 21). 
This holds at the same time against Riickert, who finds here only the three 
most outstanding features in the intellectual character of the Hellenes : clev- 
erness, erudition, and argumentativeness. But ver. 22 shows that Paul is not 
shutting out the Jewish element ; just as his Jewish-Christian readers could 
see in ypauwu. nothing else than a name for the codoi of their people. Schra- 
der, with older expositors (see below), understands by ov{yr. an inquirer, 
and in a perfectly arbitrary way makes it refer partly to the pupils of the 
great training-schools of Alexandria, Athens, Jerusalem, etc.; partly to the 
disciples of the apostles and of Jesus Himself. But cvfyr. could only denote 
a fellow-inquirer (comp. ovtyreiv in Plat. Men. p. 90 B, Crat. p. 384C ; Diog. 
L. ii. 22), which would be without pertinence here ; while, on the other 
hand, according to our view, the ody finds its reference in the notion of dis- 
putare. —Tov aiav. tobrov| attaches to all the three subjects : who belong to 
the pre-Messianic period of the world (‘‘ qaod totum est extra sphaeram verbi 
crucis,” Bengel), and are not, like the Christians, set apart by God from the 
viol Tov ai@vo¢g tobrov to be members of the Messianic kingdom, in virtue 
whereof they already, ideally considered, belong to the coming aidv. 
Comp. ver. 275 Gal. i. 4; Col. 1.13; Phil. 1. 20; Rom. xii. 2. Luther 
and many others take roi aiév. r. as referring simply to ov{yr. ; but wrongly, 
for it gives an essential characteristic of the first two subjects as well. Of 
those who think thus, some keep the true meaning of aidyv oito¢ (as Riickert 
and Billroth) ; others render : indagator rerum naturae, physical philosopher 
(Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, Cornelius a Lapide, Justiniani, Grotius, Clericus, 
and Valckenaer), which is quite contrary to the invariable sense of aidv ovr. 
— éudpavev| emphatically put first : made foolish, i.e. from the context, not : 
He has made it into incapacity of knowledge (Hofmann), which would come 
in the end to the notion of callousness, but ; He has shown it practically to be 


1JIn consequence of this, ovgnrnrys has and heathen dialecticians. See especially 
been regarded as comprising the Jewish Theodoret. 


30 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


folly, ‘‘insaniens sapientia” (Hor. Od. i. 34. 2), codia aoodoc (Clem. Protr. V. 
p. 56 A), by bringing about, namely, the salvation of believers just through 
that which to the wise men of this world seemed foolishness, the preaching 
of the cross. See ver. 21. The more foolish, therefore, this preaching is 
in their eyes and according to their judgment, the more they themselves are 
exhibited as fools (as wwpdcodor, Lucian, Alex. 40), and put to shame (ver. 27), 
since the kjpvyua, held by them to be foolish, is that which brings salvation, 
not indeed to them, but to those who believe ; roia yap oodia, bray Td Kedd?.aiov 
TOV ayabov uy evpioxn 3 Chrysostom. Comp. Isa. xliv. 25, where papaiver is to 
be taken in precisely the same way as here. — roi kécpov] t.¢. of profane non- 
Christian humanity, the two halves of which are the Jews and the heathen, 
VV. 22-24. 

Ver. 21. More detailed explanation as to this éudpavev 6 Oed¢ k.7.A., Speci- 
fying the why in the protasis and the how in the apodosis : since (see Har- 
tung, Partikell. Il. p. 259), that is to say, in the wisdom of God the world 
knew not God through wisdom, tt pleased God to save believers through the fool- 
ishness of preaching. The wisdom of God was set before the eyes of the 
world, even of the heathen part of it, in the works of creation (Rom. i. 
19 f. ; comp. also Acts xvii. 26 f., xiv. 15 ff.) ; to the Jews it was presented, 
besides, in the revelation of the O. T. In this His manifested wisdom God 
might and should have been known by men ; but they did not know Him 
therein (év ty ood. T. Ocod obk ~Eyvw 6 Kéou. T. Oedv),—did not attain by the 
means which they employed, by their wisdom, namely (6a rH¢ codiac), to 
this knowledge ; whereupon God adopted the plan of saving (in the Messi- 
anic sense) believers through the opposite of wisdom, namely, through the 
foolishness of the gospel. — év rm codia r. Ocov| is put first emphatically, 
because the whole stress of the antithesis in both protasis and apodosis is 
meant to fall on the notions of wisdom and folly. By év Paul marks out the 
sphere, in which the negative fact of the ov« éyvw (‘Sin media luce,” Calvin) 
took place ; rov Ocot again is genitive subjecti, denoting, however, not the 
wisdom shown by God in Christ (Zachariae, Heydenreich, and Maier), nor 
Christ Himself even (Schrader and older expositors adduced by Estius), 
both of which would be quite unsuitable to the apodosis, but the wisdom 
of God manifested before Christianity in nature and Scripture.’ Riickert is 
wrong in holding that év r. cog. tr. Ocoi is: ‘in virtue of the wisdom of God, 
i.e. under its guidance and arrangement, the world knew not God through 
its own wisdom.” Certainly Paul would not be made by this interpreta- 
tion to say anything which would in itself be at variance with his view of 
the divine relationship to the matter ; for with him the two factors of 
human action, the divine causality and the human self-determination, are 
so associated, that he may bring now the one and now the other into the 
foreground (comp. on Rom. ix.) ; but against it may be urged, partly the 
position of the words éy. . . Oeov, which on Riickert’s view would lose 
their weight and convey a thought here unessential, and partly the signifi- 


1 Not simply in the natural revelation ver. 22 proves that the Jews, too, are in- 
(Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and cluded with the rest in the notion of the 
many others, including Hofmann), For  xkocwpos. 


~ 


CHAP. I., 22. at 


cant relation between the protasis and apodosis, according to which the 
measure taken by God (evddxyoev x.7.2.) appears as called forth by men’s 
lack of knowledge, and hence the ov« éyvw would in such a passage be most 
unsuitably referred to the appointment of God, so as to excuse what is de- 
clared in Rom. i. 20 to be inexcusable. —ov« é1w] Seeing that the Jews 
also are included, and that anything which would contradict Rom. i. 19-21 
is out of the question, this must apply to the true knowledge of God, which 
was not attained, and which, if the xkéouo¢c had reached it, would have caused 
the preaching of the cross to appear other than foolishness ; comp. ii. 14. — 
61a TH¢ ood. | applies to the heathen world-wisdom and the Jewish school-wisdom, 
since it is the means of knowledge employed without result (observe that by 
the ov« the whole from éyvw to Gedy inclusive is negatived) by the xécuoe for 
the knowing God. The prepositional relation cannot differ from that of the 
correlative dia rt. wopiag which follows. Hence Theophylact interprets 
wrongly : dia ric év evyAwrrtia Oewpovpévye cogiag EuTrodiCduevor. So, too, Bill- 
roth : ‘‘their own wisdom was the cause of their not knowing. — évddxyoev 
6 0.| placuit Deo, He pleased, it was His will, as Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. i. 15 ; 
Col. i. 19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. IL. p. 370. — dca rie uwpiac 
tov knpbyu., 2.e. by means of the foolishness which formed the substance of the 
preaching (of the gospel). That is the doctrine of the cross, ver. 18, which, 
as compared with the wisdom employed by, the xéouo¢ as a means of knowl- 
edge, is a foolish doctrine, but in the counsel and work of God the means 
of salvation, namely, for the wioretovrac, which word, as solving the riddle 
of the divinely applied popia, stands emphatically at the end. For to the 
conscious experience of delievers that resultless wisdom of the world is now 
JSoolishness, and the foolishness of the kjpvyyua the divine saving wisdom. — 
Notice, in conclusion, how the whole verse is a compact and stately co-or- 
dination and dovetailing of correlative clauses. Remark, in particular, the 
repetition of cogia and Gedc, ‘‘ quasi aliquod telum saepius perveniat in ean- 
dem partem corporis,” Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 28. 

Ver. 22 f.* Protasis (é7e1d4) and apodosis (jueic dé) parallel to the protasis 
and apodosis in ver. 21 : since as well Jews desire signs as Hellenes seek after 
wisdom, we, on the other hand, preach, etc. It is to be observed how exactly 
the several members of the sentence correspond to what was said in ver. 21; 
for "Iovdaior x. “HAAnvec is just the notion of the «éopo¢ broken up 3 ojyeia 
aitovor and oodiav Cyr. is the practical manifestation of the ov« éyvw . . . Tov 
Ocdv ; and lastly, yueic J& kypiocouev x.t.A. contains the actual way in which 
the evddxyoev 6 Oed¢ «.7.A. Was carried into effect. And to this carrying into 
effect belongs in substance ’Iovdaiore wév oxdvdarov x.t.A. down to codiarv, ver. 
24,—a consideration which disposes of the logical difficulty raised by Hof- 
mann as to the causal relation of protasis and apodosis. —The correlation 
kat. . . kai includes not only the two subjects 'Tovdaia and "EAAnvec, but the 
two whole affirmations ; as well the one thing, that the Jews demand a 
sign, as the other, that the Gentiles desire philosophy, takes place. — jueic 


1 Ver. 22 f. is the programme of the history dencies of the world’s sensualism and spirit- 
of the development of Christianity in its ualism; ver. 24, the programme of its tri- 
conflict with the perverse fundamentalten- umph over both. 


32 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


dé] This dé, on the contrary, on the other hand, is the common classical dé of 
the apodosis (Acts xi. 17), which sets it in an antithetic relation correspond- 
ing to the protasis. See Hartung, Partikell, I. p. 184 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. 

p. 92 f.; Bornem, Acé. ap. I. p. 77. Examples of this usage after éret and 
érrecdy# may be seen in Klotz, ad Devar. p. 371 f. The parallel relation, which 
the eye at once detects, between ver. 21 and ver. 22 (and in which a rhetorical 
emphasis is given by the repetition of the éze.d7 used by Paul only in xiv. 16, 

xv. 21 ; Phil. ii. 26, besides this passage), is opposed not merely to Billroth 
and Maier’s interpretation, which makes éred7) . . . ¢yrovew introduce a 
second protasis after evddx. 6 Ode, but also to Hofmann’s, that vv. 22-24 are 
meant to explain the emphasis laid on tov¢ riotebovrac ; as likewise to the 
view of Riickert and de Wette, that there is here added an explanation of 
the dia tice pwpiacg x.7.A., IN Connection with which Riickert arbitrarily 
imagines a vév supplied after "Iovdaior. —’Iovdaios and "EAAnvec without the 

article, since the statement is regarding what such as are Jews, etc., are wont, 

as a rule, to desire. — oyjyeia] Their desire is, that He on whom they are to 
believe should manifest Himself by miraculous signs, which would demon- 

strate His Messiahship (Matt. xvi. 4). They demand these, therefore, as a 
ground of faith; comp. John iv. 48. That we are not to understand here 
miracles of the apostles (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 

Bengel, and others) is clear, both from the nature of the antithesis, and from 
the consideration that, in point of fact, the apostles did actually perform 
onueia (Rom. xv. 18 f.; 2 Cor. xii. 12). What the Jews desired in place of 
these were miraculous signs by which the crucified, but, according to the 
apostles’ teaching, risen and exalted, Jesus, should evince His being the 
Messiah, seeing that the miracles of His earthly life had for them lost all 
probative power through His crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 41 f., 63 f.). Comp. 

Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 123 f. To take, with Hofmann, the onyeta air. 

generally, as a universal Jewish characteristic, of the tendency to crave acts 

of power that should strike the senses and exclude the possibility of doubt, 

is less suitable to the definite reference of the context to Christ, in whom 
they were refusing to believe. Were the reading onueioyv (see the critical 
_remarks) to be adopted, we should have to understand it of some miracle 

specifically accrediting the Messiahship ; not, with Schulz, Valckenaer, 

Eichhorn, and Pott, of the illustrious person of an earthly ruler. Any such 
personal reference would need to be suggested by the connection, as in 
Luke ii. 34 ; but this is not at all the case in view of the parallel cogiav, nor 
is it. soeven by X. éoravp. in ver. 23. See on the latter verse. — aitovor] is ~ 
the demand actually uttered (that there be given); (yrovo. the seeking after 
and desiring, anquirere (correlative : ebpickerv). — Xprotdv éoravp.| Christ as 
crucified (ii. 2; Gal. iii. 1), and therefore neither as one who exhibits 
miraculous signs, nor as the originator of a new philosophy, such, possibly, 
as Socrates or Pythagoras. — oxaydadov] in opposition to X. éoravp. As eru- 
cifiel, He is to them an occasion for unbelief and rejection. Gal. v. 11. 
For His being put to a shameful death conflicts with the demand to have a 
Messiah glorified by miracles. —uwpiav] because philosophy is what they 
desire as a guide to salvation ; therefore to believe in Christ (not as one of 


CHAP. I., 24, 25. 30 


the wise of this world, but) as crucified, is to them a folly, an absurdity ; 
whereby, indeed, their own codgia becomes pwpia rapa 7. Oc@, ii. 19. 

Ver. 24. Along with Xporév, which is triumphantly repeated, we are men- 
tally to supply kyptocouev : but to the called themselves . . . we preach Christ 
as Gods power and God’s wisdom—i.e. our preaching of Christ as crucified 
makes such an impression upon them,’that they come to know in their 
experience the manifestation and the whole work of Christ as that whereby 
God powerfully works out salvation and reveals His counsel full of wisdom ; 
comp. ver. 30. Hofmann’s construction, making Xpcorév to be in apposition 
to Xpiorov éoravp., would be logically correct only 6n one of two suppositions : 
either if in ver. 23 there stood merely éoravpwyévov without Xpiordv (‘‘ a eruci- 
Jied one . . . who is to them Christ”); or if, in ver. 24, some more precise 
definition, such as évtwe or dAnoc, were givén along with Xpioré6v. — abroic | 
isnot the zis pointing back to rove riatebovtac, So that roi¢ KAnroic Would be in 
apposition to it (Hofmann) ; for in that case, notwithstanding the harsh and 
distant retrospective reference, airoic would in fact be entirely superfluous ; 
but the words airoic dé Toic KAyroic—the aizoic being emphatically put first 
(2 Cor. xi. 14 ; Heb. ix. 23, al., and very often in Greek writers)—go to- 
gether as closely connected, and mean simply : ipsis autem vocatis (Vulg.), to 
the called for their part, so far as they are concerned, so that airoic denotes 
the called themselves (Herm. ad Viger. p. 733), in contrast to. those round 
about them still remaining in unbelief (‘TIovdaiow . . . wopiav). Instead of 
T. KAntoic, we might have had roi¢ miorebovow (ver. 21); but how natural it 
was that the Ocov divaucy x.t.A.. which was present to the apostle’s mind, 
should have led to his designating the subjects of his statement according 
to the divine qualification which applied to them. Comp. ver. 26. As to 
KAntéc, see on ver. 2.2. That Paul did not write juiv, is to be accounted for 
on the ground of its being unsuitable to the «ypico., which is to be here 
again understood ; not, as Riickert thinks, because it seemed to him too 
hard to oppose ju. to *Iovd. and é#veor. — Ocov div. x. 6. cod.| To all the KAnroi 
Christ is both. But the words are formally parallel to the two former de- 
mands in ver. 22 ; hence diva is put jirst. Respecting cod/ay, comp. on 
ver. 30. 

Ver. 25. Confirmation of the Oecd div. k. Ocod cod. by a general prop- 
osition, the first half of which corresponds to the Ocot cogiay, and the sec- 
ond to the Ocot divayiv. — 7d nwpdv Tov Ooi] the foolish thing which comes 
Srom God,* i.e. what God works and orders, and which appears to men ab- 


1¥For the preaching is not twofold, but 
one and the same, only spoken of in its 


3 This, according to the well-known use 
in Greek of the neuter with the genitive 


respective relations to the two opposite 
classes of men. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16. That 
is the crisis, which the gospel brings about, 
and its influence on the called is to make 
them free (John viii. 33, 36; Rom. vi. 22). 

2Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 314 (ed. 
Paris. 1641): wavrwv avOpimwv KexAnuévwr ot 
Umakovaat BovAnbévtes KAnTOL wvonacOnaay. 
These also are the cwé6uevar, ver. 18; the 
opposite is the amoAAvmevor, 


(Poppo, ad Thuc. VI. p. 168; Kiihner, II. p. 
122), might also be taken as abstract: the 


_ foolishness of God—the weakness of God. 


So 70 pwpov, Eur. Hipp. 966. But Paul had 
the concrete conception in his mind; other- 
wise he would most naturally have used the 
abstract pwpia employed just before. The 
meaning of the concrete expression, how- 
ever, is not: God Himself, in so far as He is 
JSoolish (Hofmann) ; passages such as 2 Cor. 


34 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


surd. Comp. 76 cwrfpiov rt. Oeot, Luke ii. 30. — rv dvOpdrwv| We are not 
to amplify this, with the majority of interpreters (including Beza, Grotius, 
Valckenaer, Zachariae, Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, and de Wette), into row 
cogov Tov avOpor., after a well-known abbreviated mode of comparison 
(see on Matt. v. 20; John v. 36), which Estius rightly censures here as 
coactum (comp. Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 807]), because we should have to 
supply with 7év arfp. not the last named attribute, but its opposite ; the 
true rendering, in fact, is just the simple one : wiser than men; men pos- 
sess less wisdom than is contained in the foolish thing of God. — 7d aodevic 
zov Ocov] whatever in God’s appointments is, to human estimation, power- 
less and resultless. The concrete instance which Paul has in view when 
employing the general terms 70 wwpdv and 76 dobevéc rod Ocod, is the death 
of Christ on the cross, through which God has fulfilled the counsel of His 
eternal wisdom, wrought out with power the redemption of the world, laid 
the foundations of everlasting bliss, and overcome all powers antagonistic 
to Himself. ) 

Ver. 26. Confirmation of this general proposition from the experience of 
the readers. The element of proof lies in the contrast, ver. 27 f. For if 
the matter were not as stated in ver. 25, then God would not have chosen 
the foolish of the world to put to shame its wise ones. By so doing He 
has, indeed, set before your eyes the practical experimental proof, that the 
nwpov Tod Ocod transcends men in wisdom. Otherwise He would have acted 
in the reverse way, and have sought out for Himself the wise of the world, 
in order, through their wisdom, to help that which now appears as the 
uwpov T. Ocod to victory over the foolishness of the world. This holds, too, 
as against de Wette, who (comp. also Hofmann) makes ydp refer to the 
whole series of thoughts, vv. 19-25, notwithstanding that the expressions 
here used attach themselves so distinctly to ver. 25. — Biéxete] imperative. 
As such it has with logical correctness its hortatory emphasis ;* but not so, 
if we take it as ¢ndicative (Valla, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Ben- 
gel, Rosenmiiller, and Schrader). —rjv kAjoww tuov] is not to be taken ar- 
bitrarily, with Beza, Estius, Mosheim, Semler, Rosenmiiller, and Pott, pro 
concreto, for buac Tove KAnrobc, but as: your calling (to salvation through the 
Messiah) ; see, what was the nature of it as regards the persons whom God, 
the caller, had chosen (ver. 27 ff.). Krause and Olshausen run counter to 
the specific Christian sense of the word, and even to the general linguistic 
usage (see on vii. 20), when they make it mean, like the German word 
‘* Beruf” [calling], the vitae genus, the outward circumstances. — érc] 
equivalent to eic¢ éxeivo, 671, in so far, namely, as. Plat. Prot. p. 330 E, Crat. 
p. 884 C, al. John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10; Mark xvi. 
14 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 248 f. — ob +0201 codo? k. o. | that not many (among 
you) are wise in the eyes of men, etc. Itis enough to supply the simple eici, 
making ot) 702. i.e. but few, the subject, and cog. the predicate ; and there is 


iv. 17, Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, viii. 3, are no proof of 1The yap is not against our taking it as 
this.—As to the different accentuations of imperative; Greek writers, too, use it with 
mwpos and p@pos, see Lipsius, grammat. that mood,as ¢.g. Soph. Phil. 1043 : adere yap 
Unters. p. 25; Gottling, Accentl. p. 304. QuTOV, 


GHAP. 3.5 21, 25s 35 


no need for introducing an éxA7#6ncav (so commonly), according to which od r. 6. 
together would be the subject. Kara capxa, specifying the kind and manner of 
the codia, marks it out as purely human, and distinguishes it from the Christian 
wisdom which proceeds from the Holy Spirit. For cap comprises the sim- 
ply human element in man as opposed to the divine principle. Comp. cogia 
oapkixh, 2 Cor. 1. 12 5. cogia wyex, Jas. iii. 15; and see on Rom. iv. 1; 
John iii. 6. Estius aptly remarks: ‘‘ Significari vult sapientiam, quae 
studio humano absque doctrina Spir. sancti potest acquiri.” In substance, 
the codia tov xéopuov, ver. 20, and the o. tov aidvog robrov, li. 6, are the same. 
— dvvaroi] We are not to supply xara capxa here again ; for that was essen- 
tially requisite only with cogoi, and Paul otherwise would have coupled it 
with the third word (comp. ver. 20). That mighty men of this world are 
meant, is self-evident. — edyeveic] of high descent. Comp. Luke xix. 12; fre- 
quent in the classics.—Riickert objects that Paul, instead of proving the 
phenomenon recorded in ver. 26 to have proceeded from the divine wisdom, 
uses it as an argument for ver. 25, and so reasons ina circle. But this is 
without foundation. For that the phenomenon in question was a work of 
the divine wisdom, was to the Christian consciousness (and Paul was, of 
course, writing to Christians, who looked at it in the same light with him- 
self) a thing ascertained and settled, which could be employed therefore 
directly to establish ver. 25 in conformity with experience. 

Vv. 27, 28. Expanded (see rot xéopov and raca capé, ver. 29) statement of 
the opposite : Wo ; the foolish things of the world were what God chose out for 
Himself, etc. The calling, ver. 26, was in truth just the result and the proof 
of the election. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 4f.; 2 Thess. 11. 13f.; Rom. viii. 30, ix. 23 
f. —7rd pwopa Tov kéopuov| the foolish elements of the world (mankind), 7.e. those to 
whom earthly wisdom was a quite foreign thing, so that they were the simple 
among men. Comp. Matt. xi. 25. Many exegetes (including Theodoret, 
Luther, Grotius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Billroth) take the gen- 
itive as : according to the judgment of theworld. Against this may be urged, 
partly, the very fact that when God chose to Himself the persons referred 
to, they too had not yet the higher wisdom, and consequently were not un- 
wise merely in the eyes of the world ; and partly, as deciding the point, the 
following dof. and ayev., for they were, it is plain, really (and not merely 
in the eyes of the world) weak and of mean origin. — The neuters (comp. on 
the plural, Gal. ili. 22) indicate the category generally, it being evident 
from the context that what is meant is the persons included under that cate- 
gory. See generally, Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 222], and the same usage among 
classical writers in Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 101. — war. o. xatacy. | 
design. The nothingness and worthlessness of their wisdom were, to their 
shame, to be brought practically to light (by God’s choosing not them, but 
the unwise, for honour), no matter whether they themselves were conscious 
of this putting of them to shame or not. — The thrice-repeated 2&c2. 6 Ode, 
beside the three contrasts of codgoi, duvaroi, and eiyeveic ver. 26), carries with 
it a triumphant emphasis. —ré 7 dvta]. The contrast to ebyeveic is brought 
out by three steps forming a climax. This third phrase is the strongest of 
all, and sums up powerfully the two foregoing ones by way of apposition 


36 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(hence without ai) : the non-existent, i.e. what was as utterly worth nothing 
as if it had not existed at all (Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]). Comp. Eur. Hee. 
284 : qv ré7’, GAA viv ovK eiw’ Ett. Dem. 248. 25 ; Plat. Crit. p. 50 B ; and 
Stallbaum thereon. The subjective negation y# is quite according to rule 
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296), since the participle with the article expresses a 
generic notion ; and there is no need of importing the idea of an wntrue al- 
though actual existence (Hofmann). We are not therefore to supply rt to 
ra ovra (as if uydév eivac had been used before), but to explain it : the ezxist- 
ent, what through repute, fortune, etc., is regarded as that which is (kar é&o- 
xiv). Comp. Pflugk, ad Hee. l.c. : ‘‘ ipsum verbum eiva: cam vim habet, ut 
significet i aliquo numero esse, rebus secundis florere.” — xatnpy.| Not 
Kataoy. again, because the notions p7 eivac and eiva required a stronger 
word to correspond to them ; one which would convey the idea of bringing 
to nought (i.e. making worthless, Rom. ii. 31). 

Ver. 29. Final aim, to which is subordinated the mediate aim expressed 
by the thrice-repeated iva k.r.2. — brw¢ i) Kavy. raoa odpé| Hebraistic way of 
saying : that no man may boast himself. Its explanation lies in the fact that 
the negation belongs to the verb, not to zdaoa o. (nv3a-93): that every man 
may abstain from boasting himself. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Oor. II. p. 24 
f. Regarding capé as a designation of man in his weakness and imperfection 
as contrasted with God, see on Acts iii. 17. — évér. r. Ocov| Rom, iii. 20 ; 
Luke xvi. 15, al. No one isto come forth before God and boast, I am wise, 
etc. ; on this account God has, by choosing the unwise, etc., brought to 
nought the wisdom and loftiness of men, so that the ground for the asser- 
tion of human excellences before God has been cut away. 

Ver. 30 f. In contrast (dé) to the 6rwec 7 Kavy. 7. 0. évariov T. Oeov, We have 
now the true relation to God and the true and right cavyaot#a arising out of 
it: But truly it is God’s work, that ye are Christians and so partakers of the 
greatest divine blessings, that none of you should in any way boast himself save 
only in God. Comp. Eph. ii. 8 f. —é& airov| has the principal emphasis : 
Hrom no other than God is derived the fact that you are in Christ (as the 
element of your life). "Ef denotes the causal origination. Comp. Eph. ii. 
8: ovk && tur, Ocod Td ddpov, also in profane writers: é fe@v, é&x Arde 
(Valckenaer, ad Herod. ii. 13) ; and generally, Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. 
While Hofmann here, too, as in ver. 28, introduces into eiva: the notion of 
the true existence, which they have from God ‘‘in virtue of their being 
included in Christ,” others again, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
Theophylact, take é& avrov dé tueic éore by itself in such a way as to make it 
express sonship with God (comp. Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 558), and regard év 
as conveying the more precise definition of the mode whereby this sonship 
is attained : raidec abtov gore, did Tov Xpiotowv TovTo yevduevot, Chrysostom ; 
comp. Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Ewald, and others. 
But wrongly ; for the conception éx Gcov elva: in the supposed sense is Johan- 
nine, but is not in accordance with the Pauline mode of expression (not even 
in Gal. iv. 4); and eiva év Xpioré was a conception so habitually in use 
(Rom. xvi. 7, 11; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. i. 22, al.), that it must have occurred 
ef itself here also to the reader ; besides, the a6 Ocov which follows answers 


CHAP. J., 30. 37 


to the 2 airod. This applies, too, against Osiander, who, after é aivroi, 
mentally supplies yeyeryuévor: ‘‘ being born of God, ye are members of 
Christ.” — dueic] with emphasis : ye for your part, ye the chosen out of the 
world. — ic éyevfn . . . axoAbtpworc] brings home to the heart the high 
value of that God-derived eiva: év Xpiot@ : who has become to us from God 
wisdom, righteousness and holiness, and redemption. ’ByeviGn is simply a later 
(Doric) form for éyévero (Thom. Mag. p. 189 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 f.), 
not, as Riickert makes it (comp. Luther: ‘‘ gemacht ist’), a true passive in 
sense ; comp. Acts iv. 4; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 (Eph. iii. 7, Lachm.). 
Christ became to us wisdom, etc., inasmuch as His manifestation and His 
whole saving work have procured for believers these blessings ; namely, 
first of all_—what was of primary importance in the connection of ver. 19 
ff.,—wisdom, for to believers is revealed the counsel of God, in whom are 
all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (see ii. 7 ff. ; Col. ii. 8) ; righteous- 
ness, for by means of faith we are through the Lord’s atoning death consti- 
tuted righteous before God (Rom. iii. 24f., al. ; see on Rom. i. 17 ; holiness 
(see on Rom. vi. 19, 22), for in those who are justified by faith Christ works 
continually by His Spirit the new holy life (Rom. viii. 1-11) ; redemp- 
tion, for Christ has delivered believers, through His blood paid as their ran- 
som (Rom. iii. 24, vi. 20, vii. 23), from the wrath of God, to which they 
were subject before the entrance of faith (see on Eph.i. 7, ii. 3). The order 
in which these predicates stand is not illogical ; for after the first intellectual 
benefit (codia) which we have received in Christ, marked out too from the 
rest by the position of the word, Paul brings forward the ethical blessedness 
of the Christian, and that in the first place positively as dcxavoobvy and dyracpusc, 
but then also—as though in triumph that there was now nothing more to 
fear from God—negatively as aroittpwoic, in which is quenched all the wrath 
of God against former sin (instead of which with the Christian there are now 
righteousness and holiness). Hence in explaining dzoairp. we should not 
(with Chrysostom) abide by the general arfA2azev jude ard TavTwv TOV KaKOV, 
which is already contained in what goes before ; nor again should we, with 
Grotius, Calovius, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and. others (comp. also 
Schmid, bibl. Theol. Il. p. 325 ; and Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre, p. 
8), make it the final redemption from death and all evils, such as is the object 
of éAric, the redemption perfecting itself beyond our earthly life (Hofmann), 
or the definitive acquittal at the last judgment (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 327). 
In the passages alleged to support the interpretation in question, this sense 
is given solely by the accessory defining phrases—namely, in Eph. i. 14 by rij¢ 
mepitroinoewc, In iv. 80 by 7uépav, and in Rom, viii. 23 by tov cpuatoc. Rickert 
(comp. Neander) is further of opinion that dicacootvy «.7.2. is merely explana- 
tory of how far Christ is to us cogia, namely, as dixacoobvy, dyracudc, and aro- 
2orp., and that these three refer to the three essential things in the Christian 
life, faith, love, and hope : the ré binding together the last three words and 
separating them from the first. But (1) the ré links closely together only 
dtxacoo. and dytacp., and does not include aoi. ; much less does it separate 
the three last predicates from codia ;! on the contrary, te cai embraces dix. 


1 With codia the ré has nothing whatever to do. Hofmann makes it serve as a link 


38 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


and dy., as it were, in one, so that then azodtitpwore comes to be added with 
the adjunctive xai as a separate element, and consequently there results the 
following division : (a) wisdom, (0) righteousness and holiness, and (¢) 
redemption. See as to this use of re xai . . . xai, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
102 ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 878 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 224f. (2) 
Paul would, on this theory, have left his readers without the slightest hint 
of the subordinate relation of the three last predicates to the first, although 
he could so easily have indicated it by a &¢ or a participle. (3) According 
to the correct interpretation, azodirp. is not something yet future, but some- 
thing which has already taken place in the death of Christ. (p) Bos (Obs. Mise. 
p. 1 ff.), Alethius, Clericus, Nésselt (Opusc. II. p. 127 ff.), Valckenaer, and 
Krause interpret 1n a still more involved way, holding that only the words 
from é¢ to Oecov apply to Christ, and these are to be put in a parenthesis ; 
while dicatoctvy x.7.2. are abstracta pro coneretis (2 Cor. v. 21), and belong to 
tusic ote : ** jus beneficio vos estis in Christo Jesu dcxaoovvy x.T.A.,” 
Valckenaer. How ambiguous and unsuitable would such a statement as é¢ 
éyev. copia x.t.A. be for a mere parenthetical notice !— ad Oeoi] on God’s part, 
by God as the author of the fact. Comp. Herod. vi. 125 : do dé ’AAKkuaiv- 
voo. . . €yévovrTo kai xadpta Aaurpoi. See generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
I. p. 194 ; Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 464] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 
320]. That it belongs to éyev#fy, and not to cogia, is proved by the juiv 
which stands between. The latter, however, is not to be understood, with 
Riickert, as though it ran 7 7juerépa cogia (‘‘ what to the Hellene his cogia is, 
or is merely assumed to be, namely, the ground of confidence,—that Christ 
is to us’’), else Paul must have written : 6¢ juiv éyeviOn 7 codia with the arti- 
cle, and have placed juiv first with the emphasis of contrast.—Observe 
further, that Paul has said tweic with his eye still, as in ver. 26, upon the 
church to which his readers belonged ; but now, in adducing the blessings 
found in Christ, he extends the range of his view to all Christians ; and 
hence, instead of the individualizing tweic, we have the juiv including him- — 
self and others. 

Ver. 31. The fact that God is the author of your connection with Christ, 
and thereby of the blessings you receive as Christians (ver. 30), should, 
according to the divine purpose (iva), determine you to comply with 
that word of Scripture which calls for the true lowly kavyaodu : he that 
boasteth himself, let him boast himself in the Lord, praise his own privileges 
only as God’s work, boast himself only as the object of His grace.—That 
the Képioc is not Christ (Riickert) but God, and not Christ and God (Hof- 
mann), is proved by the emphatic é& airov, ver. 30, and évém. r. Oeov, ver. 
29. Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 17.—The apostle quotes Jer. 1x. 24, abbreviating 
quite freely, after the LXX. The construction, however, is anacoluthic ; for 
Paul purposely retains the scriptural saying unaltered in its strong impera- 
tive form, and leaves it to the reader to supply the change from the impera- 
tive to the subjunctive, which the syntax, properly speaking, would require. 
Comp. on Rom. xv. 3. 


of connection to godéa. In that case, Paul must have written codia te Kai Sixatoc. x, 
ay. K, aoa, 


NOTES. 39 


Norrs py AMERICAN EDITor. 


(a) The factions. ‘Vv. 11-13. 


On the subject contained in these verses Dean Stanley makes the following 
edifying reflections: ‘‘It is by catching a glimpse, however partial, of the 
wild dissensions which raged around and beneath the apostolical writings, that 
we can best appreciate the unity and repose of those writings themselves ; it is 
by seeing how completely these dissensions have been obliterated, that we can 
best understand how marked was the difference between their results and 
those of analogous divisions in other history. We know how the names of 
Plato and Aristotle, of Francis and Dominic, of Luther and Calvin, have con- 
tinued as the rallying point of rival schools and systems long after the 
decease, and contrary even to the intentions of the respective founders, But 
with regard to the factions of the. Apostolic age it was not so. The schools of 
Paul and Apollos and Kephas, which once waged so bitter a warfare against 
each other, were extinguished almost before ecclesiastical history had begun ; 
and the utmost diversity of human character and outward style has been un- 
able to break the harmony in which their memories are united in the associa- 
tions of the Christian world. Partly this arose from the nature of the case, 
The Apostles could not have been the founders of systems, even if they would. 
Their power was not their own, but another’s: ‘Who made them to differ from 
another? What had they which they had not received?’ If once they claimed 
an independent authority, their authority was gone. Great philosophers, 
great conquerors, great heresiarchs, leave their names even in spite of them- 
selves. But such the Apostles could not be without ceasing to be what they 
were ; and the total extinction of the parties which were called after them is in 
fact a testimony to the divinity of their mission. And it is difficult not to 
believe that in the great work of reconciliation, of which the outward volume 
of the Sacred Canon is the chief monument, they were themselves not merely 
passive instruments, but active agents ; that a lesson is still to be derived from 
_ the record they have left of their own resistance to the claims of the factions 
which vainly endeavoured to divide what God had joined together.” 


(B) ‘* Being saved.”’ Ver. 18. 


The English translator rendered the Greek phrase here, “those who 
are being saved.’’ But this is not required by the German original, and be- 
sides is objectionable in itself. In the first place, it is awkward and to many 
persons questionable English. In the next place, it is not required by the 
verbal form. The passive participle of the present tense is often used to ex- 
press a completed action. (See Acts xx. 9; Heb. vii. 8; 2 Peter ii. 4, and 2 
John 7.) In the last mentioned we have the present participle used to express 
the very same thing that in 1 John iv. 2 is expressed by a perfect participle. 
It is not denied that the present passive participle often denotes a con- 
tinued state or a lengthened process (as in the description of the ancient 
saints, Heb. xi. 37, as ‘‘ destitute, afflicted, evil entreated’’), but it is claimed 
that this is not the habitual or necessary meaning. The context or the general 
usage of Scripture, or the nature of the subject, must determine the precise 


40) PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE ''O THE CORINTHIANS. 


meaning in any given case. In the LXX. the present passive and the perfect 
passive participle of the verb o{w are used as precisely equivalent. (Compare 
Jer. xliv. 14 with xlii. 7, and Isaiah xlv. 20 with lxvi. 19.) 

But the chief objection to the proposed rendering is that it introduces a con- 
ception which does not belong to the New Testament, and, so far as it can, ob- 
literates what is a marked peculiarity of the scriptural mode of conceiving of 
salvation, viz. that it is at once present and future. Which of these views is 
intended depends upon the circumstances in each case. On one hand, salva- 
tion is spoken of as to be realized in the day when Christ shall come, So 
1 Peteri. 9, ‘‘ Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls”; 
Rom. viii. 24, ‘‘ Weare saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope”; 1 Cor. 
v. 5, ‘*That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”; Matt. x. 22, 
‘«He that endureth to the end shall be saved.’’ It is therefore quite certain that 
salvation in its full meaning, as extending to the body as well as the soul, as in- 
cluding inward holiness as wellas forensic justification, as putting an end to 
sin and sorrow, vicissitude and temptation, tears and death, is experienced 
only when Christ shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait 
for him unto salvation (Heb. ix. 28). But, on the other hand, it is beyond 
doubt that the Scripture frequently speaks of salvation as a present possession 
of the believer. ‘Thus in Luke vii. 50 our Lord is represented as saying to the 
penitent outcast who bathed his feet with tears and wiped them with the hair 
of her head, ‘‘ Thy faith hath saved thee.” So Paul says (Titus iii. 5), ‘* Ac- 
cording to his mercy he saved us” (cf. 2 Tim. i. 9). And Peter (1, iii. 21) 
says of baptism, ‘‘ which also after a true likeness doth now save you.” How- 
ever men may explain this variant usage of Scripture writers, the fact of the 
variation should not be elided or obscured. Nor should the plain teaching of 
the Bible be denied which constantly affirms of men that they are either saved 
or lost, no third or intermediate condition being conceivable, any more than a 
departed spirit can be one half in heaven and the other halfin hell. There 
may be gradual approaches to the act of faith, or even along preparation for it, 
but the act itself is instantaneous. To speak of salvation, therefore, as a 
process, although the term is susceptible of a meaning which is correct, is to 
run the risk of misleading persons by inducing them to take up an opinion 
which is not at all correct, but unscriptural and dangerous. 


(c) Quotations. Ver. 19.: 


The statement here is certainly correct, and is of great importance in ex- 
plaining the method in which the words of the Old Testament are quoted in 
the New. It is from forgetfulness of the unity of Scripture and the prepara- 
tory character of the earlier economy that so many have charged the Apostle 
with wresting the prophetic utterances—that is, giving them a meaning which 
was never intended by the original speaker. It is true in several senses that 
‘‘the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’’ The Bible’s chief and 
salient feature is that it is, from first to last, the history of redemption, and all 
its parts, however diverse in tone and character, are bound together by their 
common relation to the one central and controlling thought, the promise of a 
world-wide deliverer. One of Meyer’s great excellences is that he thoroughly 
and consistently recognizes this fact, 


NOTES. 41 


(p) ‘* Christ made unto us wisdom from God.’ Ver. 30, 


The rendering of this verse to which the author objects may be seen by tak- 
ing the words of the Revised Version, inserting the margin in the text, thus, 
‘“«Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, both righteousness 
and sanctification and redemption.’’ Dr. Meyer’s objections certainly have 
weight, but they do not seem conclusive. The order of the words in the 
original, the stress which Paul lays on wisdom throughout the chapter, and the 
striking contrast thus gained, confirm the view that the three latter nouns are 
epexegetical of the first and are intended to disclose the glorious characteristics 
of the wisdom which is trom Godas distinguished from the wisdom which is 
of human origin. So Dr. Poor (in Lange), Archer Butler (in Sermons), Canon 
Evans (in Speaker’s Commentary), Principal Brown (in Popular Commentary), 
Beet (in Com.), and, substantially, Dean Stanley. Dr. Poor justly insists that 
in a collocation of words so peculiar, it is natural to take the last three words 
as an afterthought exegetical of the main one — and such an addition was 
needed. Wisdom was what Paul had been disparaging throughout this sec- 
tion. Butit wasthe wisdom of man. Now he glories in Christ as having been 
made unto us wisdom. It was necessary therefore to difference this from what 
he had been condemning. So he adds from God, thus showing whence this 
wisdom came. Then to characterize it, to exhibit its distinguishing peculiari- 
ties as practical and suited for man’s deepest needs, instead of being merely 
speculative, he subjoins the three great points it contemplated. And here is 
where the wisdom of the Gospel far surpasses that of secular philosophy. Here, 
then, Dr. Poor concludes, we have, 1, an adequate reason for the order of the 
words ; 2, notarepetition, but a distinct thought in a76 Oeov, and so a reason for 
the change of the preposition from the one in the first clause ; 3, not a digres- 
sion from the main course of thought, as must be supposed in the other interpre- 
tation, but a glorious consummation of it, displaying the infinite superiority of 
the wisdom from God over all human wisdom ; 4, an epexegesis quite in the 
manner of Paul (Rom. i. 12). 


42 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP Hetirh. 


Ver. 1. paptripiov] A C &*, min. Syr. Copt. and some Fathers: uvorgpiov. Ap- 
proved by Griesb. and Ewald, adopted also by Riickert. A gloss written on the 
margin from ver. 7. Had uaprvprov crept in from i. 6, the witnesses which 
have it would read also rov Xporov instead of tr, Oeov; but this occurs only in 
very few, some of which, besides, have uvornpiov. — Ver. 2. 72 eidévar] Elz. tov 
eldévat tt. But rod is wanting in decisive witnesses; that rc should be put 
first is rendered certain by B C, min. Bas. Cyr. Isid. Chrys. Hil. Victorin. Aug., 
also D E (which have ri év diyiv eidévac) ; and the external attestation must de- 
cide here, — Ver. 3. kai éyé] Lachm. and Riickert read xayé, with A BC 8, 
min. Or. Bas. al. Taken from ver. 1.— Ver. 4. After meioic Elz. has dvfpo- 
wivne, against preponderating evidence. Addition from vv. 5 and 13. In re- 
ply to Heydenreich’s unfounded defence of the word, see Reiche, Comment. crit. 
I. p. 134. — The readings which alter wevSoi¢ (wecGoi : 1, 18*, 48, al. Or. Kus. al. ; 
melOavoic, Macar.), and those which either leave out Adyoig (F G, 74, al. Erp. 
Boern. Ambrosiast, Sedul.) or alter it (Aéywy : Syr. Armen. Or. twice over, and 
several others : Adyov), are old shifts resorted to on failure to understand zrevfoic, 
as also the short reading év veo codiac must be so accounted. See the exegeti- 
cal remarks, and Reiche, p. 133. — Ver. 7. The order of the words @eov oco¢iav 
(Elz. and Matth. invert it) is decisively attested, as also the order in ver. 10: 
atekda. 6 Oedc. — Ver. 9. In place of the second d, Lachm. and Tisch. have éoa. 
with ABC and some Fathers.! Rightly ; ¢ isa mechanical repetition from 
what goes before. — Ver. 10. Instead of dé Tisch. reads yap, supported only by 
B, min. Copt. Sahid. Clem. — airov] is wanting in A BC 8&, Copt. Clem. Bas. 
Cyr. It is deleted by Lachm. and Riickert. But considering the independent 
TO yap tvevua Which follows, it would have been more natural to omit avrov or 
to add dyiov (so Didym.) than to insert avtod. — Ver. 11. éyvwkev is, in ac- 
cordance with the vast preponderance of evidence, approved by Griesb. and 
adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rickert. Elz., however, Matth. and Scholz, have 
oidev. Repetition of the preceding oidev done mechanically or by way of gloss, 
In favour of éyvwxev there is also the reading éyrw in F G, 23, and Fathers. — 
Ver. 13. mrvetvuaroc] Elz. adds dyiov, against decisive evidence to the contrary. 
A superfluous and weakening definition. — Ver. 15. The yév after avaxp. in Elz. 
and Scholz (deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.) is wanting in A C D* FG, 
17, and many vss. and Fathers. It has arisen from the dé which follows. In 
®%* the whole verse is omitted through Homoioteleuton. S** has pév. —tad 
mavta] so also Riick. and Tisch. ; Lachm. brackets ra ; Elz. and Scholz have 
simply mavra. But 7rd is attested by A C D, min. Ir. ms. Or. Nyss. Chrys. ; 
mavra is an old correction of the text, with the view of bringing in the mascu- 


1 Clement, too, Cor. I. 34, has oc0a, which mann). A converse proceeding on the part 
certainly was not first imported from his _ of the transcribers might rather seem more 
quotation into that of the apostle (Hof- natural. 


CHAR ATI. 2 1,52. 45 


line to correspond with the oidevd¢ which comes after ; hence, too, Didym. 
and Theodoret have ravrac. — Ver. 16. Xpiorot] Lachm. has Kupiov, with B D* 
- FG, Theophyl. Ambrosiast. Aug. Sedul. Mechanical repetition of the preced- 
ing Kupiov. Had Kupiov been the original reading and explained by a gloss, 
the substitute for it would have been not Xpcorod, but O¢ov, Seeing that every 
marginal annotator must have been aware from Isa. xl. 13 that the preceding 
Kvpiov referred to God. 


\ 

Vv. 1-5. Application of the foregoing section (1. 17-81) to the manner in 
which Paul had come forward as a teacher im Corinth. 

Ver. 1. Kayé] J too, as is the duty, in accordance with the previous expla- 
nation (i. 17-31), of every preacher of the gospel. The construction is such, 
that xa? irepoxny x.t.A. belongs to carayy., as indicating the mode adopted 
in the xarayyéAdew : I too, when I came to you, brethren, came proclaiming to 
you, not upon the footing of a pre-eminence of speech (eloquence) or wisdom (phi- 
losophy), the testimony of God. Against connecting the words in this way,’ 
it is objected that é20av 7A0ov gives an intolerable tautology. But this is of 
no weight (see the passages in Bernhardy, p. 475 ; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. v. 
8. 2; Sauppe, ad Anab. iv. 2. 21 ; comp. on Acts vii. 34), and would, be- 
sides, apply to the construction 7/6ov ob . . . codiac, katayyéAAwv (Luther, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, Ritckert, Hofmann) ; 
further, it is more natural and more in accordance with the sense to think 
in connection with ka’ irepoynv x.t.A. of the manner of the preaching than 
of the manner of the coming. For that reason, too, 7A0ov is not placed after 
codiac. The preposition xara, again, to express mode (Winer, p. 375 [E. T. 
501]), is quite according to rule ; comp. xa? imepBoagv, Kata xparoc, and the 
like. — As to irepoyh, eminentia, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 711 
D; Def. 416 ; Arist. Pol. iv. 9.5. Also kxaxév inepoyf, 2 Macc. xiii. 6. — 
katayyéAAwv| Paul might have used the future, but the present participle 
places the thing more vividly before us as already begun with the 7A@0v. So 
especially often dyyéAAwv (Valck. ad Phoen. 1082) ; e.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29: 
é¢ Tac A@yvac éxdevoev, ayyéAdovoa ra yeyovara, Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, and 
Stallbaum im loc. See, in general, Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 429 f.] ; Dissen, 
ad Pindar. Ol. vii. 14. — 76 paprip. tov Ocov] in substance not different from 
Fes ANTS) Ts Xpiorow, i. 6; 2 Tim. i. 8. For the preachers of the gospel give 
testimony of God, as to what He has done, namely, in Christ for the salvation 
ofmen. Comp. xv. 15. In accordance with i. 6, the genitive is not, with 
Calvin, Bengel, Osiander, and Hofmann, to be taken subjectively, as in 1 
John v. 9 f. | 

Ver. 2. Hor I did not resolve (did not set it before me as part of my under- 
taking) to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and that the crucified, 
4.e. to mix up other kinds of knowledge with the proclamation of Jesus 
Christ, etc.? Had Paul not disdained this and not put aside all other 


1 Which is done also by Castalio, Bengel, the oficitum, and ‘‘in his duobus totum 
and others, Pott, Heydenreich, Schrader, versatur evangelium.”’ But the strong 
de Wette, Osiander, Ewald. emphasis on the latter point arises from 

2 Causaubon remarks well, that “Inc. X. looking back to i. 17-24. 


refers to the person, and x. Todt. éatavp. to zon et 


44 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTIIANS. 


knowledge, his xatayyéAdeww would not have remained free from trepoy7 
Aéyou 2 cogiac. The ordinary reference of the negation to 7c : I resolved to 
know nothing, etc., isin arbitrary opposition to the words (so, however, Pott, 
Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Ewald). In éxpzva Calvin and Grotius find too 
much, since the text does not give it : magnum duai ; Hofmann again, too 
little, with Luther and others : I judged, was of opinion ; for Paul could 
indeed discard and negative in his own case the undertaking to know some- 
thing, but not the judgment that he did know something. His se/f-deter- 
mination was, not to be directed to know, etc. Comp. vii. 37; 2 Cor. il. 
1; Rom. xiv. 13 ; Kpivaé tt kai rpobécba, Polyb. ill. 6. 7; Wisd. viii. 9; 1 
Macc. xi. 83; 2 Mace. vi. 14, al. He might have acted otherwise, had he 
proposed to himself to do so. — ri eidévac] mpd¢ avtidiaotodqy rig ESwbev eipyrat 
codiac’ ov yap 7ADov avadAoytapnodve TAEKWY, OVSE COdiouaTa, OVS’ aAAO TL Aéywv bpiv, 
i bte 6 Xpiotd¢ éotavpdOy, Chrysostom. But the giving up of everything else 
is far more powerfully expressed by eidévae (comp. Arrian, Hpict. ii. 1) than 
if Paul had said Aéyerv or Aadciv. He was not disposed, when among the 
Corinthians, to be conscious of anything else but Christ. The notion of per- 
mission (Riickert), which might be conveyed in the relation of the infinitive 
to the verb (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 ; Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1 ; 
Anab. v. 7. 84), would here only weaken the force of the statement. Were 
tov eidévae te the correct reading (but see the critical remarks), the right ren- 
dering of the genitive would not be : so that (Billroth), but : I made no 
resolution, in order to know anything. Comp. on Acts xxvii. 1.—k. Todr. 
éoravp.| notwithstanding the offence therein implied for Jew and Gentile, i. 
18, 23. Comp. Gal. vi. 14. 

Vv. 3, 4. After the proof given in ver. 2, Paul takes up again the connec- 
tion of ver. 1, and that with the simple «cai : And J for my part (with others 
it may have been different !) fell into weakness and into much fear and trem- 
bling among you (xpoc tu. 3 see on John i. 1). —yiyvecba év, to fall into a 
state, etc. (and to be in it) ; so Thue. i. 78. 1 ; Plato, Prot. p. 314 C ; Dem. 
p. 179, wit. Comp. Luke xxii. 44; 1 Macc. i. 27; 2 Macc. vii. 9 ; Hist. 
Sus: 8. We might also join zpo¢ tude to éyevdunv, not, indeed, in the way in 
which Hofmann interprets it, as if for éyevéuqv there stood jjunv (Mark xiv. 
49), but in the sense : I arrived among you (2 John 12, and see generally, 
Fritzsche, Ind. ad Lucian. Dial. Deor. p. 85 : Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 
295, ed. 8) ; ver. 4, however, shows that what is here spoken of is not again 
(ver. 1) the coming thither, but the state when there. — The three phrases, 
ao0., d680c, and tpduoc, depict the great timidity with which Paul was in 
Corinth, through ‘his humble sense of the disproportion between his own 
powers and the great enterprise to which his conscientiousness kept him 
bound. In facing it he felt himself very weak, and was in fear and trem- 
bling. As for want of natural strength of will and determination, of which 
Hofmann speaks, there were no signs of-anything of the kind in Paul, 
even judging from his experience at Athens ; and no such weakness betrays 
itself in Acts xviii, 4-11. The connection forbids us from thinking, with 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius & Lapide, Grotius, 
and others, of the sufferings and persecutions (do6.), and of the apprehen- 


CHAP. 11., 3, 4. 45 


sion of dangers, which he had to undergo in Corinth ; for the text hints 
nothing of persecutions and dangers, and these would not necessarily fur- 
nish the motive for simplicity in preaching (vy. 1, 4 f.), nay, might even 
excite to the greater rhetorical exertion. The weakness, etc., was of a deep 
ethical nature, being based on the entire renunciation of human wisdom 
and strength (ver. 5). Other exegetes wrongly understand dcGeveia even of 
bodily weakness, either generally sickliness (Riickert) or more especially 
weakness in the chest and voice (Storr, comp. Rosenmiiller). — $6fo¢ x. tpduoc] 
always denote with Paul (comp. also Ps. ii. 11) the deeply vivid and keen 
apprehension of humility, lest it should be unable to meet the emergency 
concerned, See 2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 12; Epb. vi. 5. —6 Aédyoc pov k. r. 
Khpvyud wov| are indeed emphatically separated from each other by the repe- 
tition of the nov ; but it is an arbitrary distinction to make the former of the 
two refer to the form, the latter to the contents (Heydenreich), or the former 
to the privata, the latter to the publica institutio (so Riickert and the major- 
ity of commentators). The former is the more general expression, the latter 
the particular : my speech generally (comp. 2 Cor. x. 10), and especially my 
public proclamation. — ov év reioic ood. 2dyorc| sc. 7v, non versabatur in, did 
not move in the element of persuasive words of wisdom, such words as are philo- 
sophically arranged and thereby fitted to persuade. Ilev#é¢ is found nowhere 
else in the whole range of extant Greek literature, x:avé¢ being the word in 
use (Xen. Cyr. vi. 4.5 ; Thuc. iv. 21 ; Dem. 928. 14 ; Josephus, Antt. viii. 
9 ; and the passages from Plato in Ast, Lev. III. p. 102. Meineke, Menand. 
p- 222).  Ilec#éc, however, is formed from reifw by correct analogy as 
gedd¢ from ¢efdoua, etc. Comp. Salmasius, de ling. Hellenist. p. 86 ; Reiche, 
Comment. crit. I. p. 136 f. It was in all likelihood an adjective belonging 
only to the colloquial language of common life. Kypke, indeed (Odss. II. p. 
193), would find some trace of itin Plato, Gorg. p. 493 A ; but what we have 
there is a play on the words 76 riOavéy and ridoc, a cask, which has no connec- 
tion whatever with ze#éc. Pasor and Schrader make zevfoic to be the dative 
plural of rei, swada, and what follows to be in apposition to it : in persua- 
sions, in words of wisdom. But the plural of red also has no existence ; 
and how abrupt such an apposition would be, as well as wholly at variance 
with the parallel in ver. 13! The following are simply conjectures (comp. the 
critical remarks) : Beza and Erasmus Schmid (after Eusebius), év recfoi cogiag 
Adyov ; Grotius, év mioToic x.7.A.; Valckenaer, Klose, and Kiihn (Commentat. 
ad 1 Cor. ii. 1-5, Lips. 1784), év riBavoic or refavoic «.7.2. (comp. also Alberti, 
Schediasm. p. 105) ; Alberti, év reclovg (suadae) o. Adyorc, or’ év resfoi codiac 
(without Adyorc). — év arodei£e: rvetuatoc x. Suvdyewc| Without there being any 
necessity for explaining the two genitives by a év dud dvoiv as equivalent to 
mvebpatoc Suvarod (so still Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, with older 
expositors), the meaning may, according to our interpretation of amédevEu¢ and 
to our taking the genitives in an objective or subjective sense, be either : so 
that I evinced Spirit and power (so Vatablus and others, with Pott and Bill- 
roth) ; or: so that Spirit and power made themselves known through me (Calvin : 


1 So, too, Semler, Flatt, Rinck, Fritzsche in the Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1840, Nr. 100. 


46 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


‘in Pauli ministerio. . . . quasi nuda Dei manus se proferebat’’) ; or: so 
that Spirit and power gave the proof (Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, 
and Maier, following older commentators). The last is most in.keeping with 
the purposely chosen expression azddecéi¢ (found here only in the N. T. ; Dem. 
326.4 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 77 C, Theaet. p. 162 E, and often ; 8 Macc. iv. 20), 
‘and with the significant relation to ob év meioic o. Adyorc. Paul means the 
Holy Spirit (ver. 10 ff.) and the divine power communicating itself therein, 
ver. 5 (Rom. i. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 7; 1 Thess. i. 5), which wrought through 
his preaching upon the minds of men, persuading them of its truth,—the 
testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum.* At variance with the text is the 
view of several of the older expositors (following Origen, contra Celsum, 1. 
p. 5), who refer zvetparoc to the oracles of the O. T., and duvay. to the mir- 
acles of the apostle ; as well as the view of Grotius, that the former applies 
to the prophecies, and the latter to the cures, by means of which Paul had 
given the amddergcc. 

Ver. 5. Aim of the divine leading, the organ of which the apostle knew 
himself to be, in what is set forth in ver. 4: i order that your faith (in 
Christ) may be based, have its causal ground (comp. Bernhardy, p. 210), not 
on man’s wisdom, but on God’s power (which has brought conviction to you 
through my speech and preaching). That iva introduces not his own (Hof- 
mann), but the divine purpose, is clear from éy damodeizec x.7.4., In Which 
Paul has stated how God had wrought through him. Comp. iva ini. 31. 

Vv. 6-16. Wisdom, however, we deliver among the perfect ; but it is a higher 
wisdom revealed to us by the Spirit, which therefore only those filled with the 
Spirit, and not the sensuous, apprehend. — Paul having, in i. 17-31, justified 
the simple and non-philosophical method of proclaiming the gospel from 
the nature of its contents, and having now, in ii. 1-5, applied this to him- 
self and his own preaching among the Corinthians, there might be attrib- 
uted to him the view that what the preachers of the gospel set forth was 
no codia at all,—a supposition which, in writing to the Corinthians above 
all, he could not safely leave uncontradicted. He now shows, accordingly, 
that among ripened Christians there is certainly a cogia delivered, but not a 
philosophy in the common, worldly sense, etc. 

Ver. 6. Wisdom, nevertheless (unphilosophical as my discourse among you 
was), we deliver among the perfect. — 2arovipuev| we speak it out, hold it not 
back. That the plural does not refer to Paul alone (so wswally), but to the 
apostolic teachers in general, is clear from the cai éy in iii. 1, which intro- 
duces the particular application of the plural statement here. — év means 
nothing else than in, surrounded by, among, coram ; 2adeiv év corresponds to 
the Za/eiv with the dative in ili. 1. We must therefore reject not only the 
rendering for the perfect (Flatt, with older expositors), which is in itself 
linguistically untenable (for even in such passages as those cited by Bern- 


1 Theophylact is right in supposing as 
regards mvevmatos: appyitw Tiwi TpdTw mioTW 
He makes dvvapews, 
however, apply to the miracles, as does 
Theodoret also, who takes the two ele- 


€veTrolet TOLS aKOVOUGL, 


ments together, and explains the clause of 
the Savuarovpyia Tod mvevmatos. So, too, in 
substance, Chrysostom, according to whom 
it is by mwvevuaros that the miracles are 
made to appear as ¢rue miracles. 


~ 


CHAP. II., 6. 47 
hardy, p. 212, the local force of év should be retained), but also the expla- 
nation : according to the judgment of the perfect (Grotius, Tittmann, de Spir. 
Dei mysterior. div. interprete, Lips. 1814, in the Syn. N. T. p. 285), which 
would have to be referred, with Billroth, to the conception of among, since 
the corresponding usage of év éuoi, év coi, in the sense, according to my or thy 
view, applies exclusively to these particular phrases (Bernhardy, p. 211). — 
The réAeco. (comp. on Eph. iv. 13), who stand in contrast to the vfmcx év 
Xpior are those who have penetrated beyond the position of beginners in Chris- 
tian saving knowledge to the higher sphere of thorough and comprehensive insight. 
The oogia, which is delivered to these, is the Christian analogue to philoso- 
phy in the ordinary sense of the word, the higher religious wisdom of Chris- 
tianity, the presentation of which (xii. 8) is not yet appropriate for the begin- 
ners in the faith Gii. 1, 2). The form of this instruction was that of spir- 
itual discourse (ver. 13) framed under the influence of the holy rveiua, but 
independent of the teachings of philosophic rhetoric ; and its matter was 
the future relations of the Messianic kingdom (vv. 9, 12) in their connection 
with the divine counsel of redemption and its fulfilment in Christ, the wvorfpia 
tHe Bactieiag TOv ovpavov (Matt. xiil. 11),—that, which no eye hath seen, etc. 
Comp. Bab. Sanhedr. f. xcix. 1: ‘‘Quod ad mundum futurum : oculus 
non vidit, O Deus, praeter te.” The definitions now given * respecting the 
copia Ocov are the only ones that neither go beyond the text, nor are in the 
least degree arbitrary, while they comprehend also the doctrine of the kriouc 
as regards its Messianic final destination, Rom. viii.,—that highest analogue 
to the philosophy of nature. It may be gathered, however, with certainty 
from iii. 1, 2, that we are not to think here of any disciplina arcani. With the 
main point in our view as a whole,—namely, that cogia denotes that high- 
er religious wisdom, and réAeco: those already trained in Christian knowledge, 
grown up, as it were, to manhood,—Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, 
Semler, Stolz, as wellas Pott, Usteri, Schrader, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann, accord. Chrysostom, however, Theophy- 
lact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others, in- 


1Comp. Riickert, who, as respects the 
matter, is of opinion that it includes the 


discussions on justification, on the contrast 
between Christ and Adam, and on predesti- 


higher views regarding the divine plan of the 
world in relation to the development of the 
kingdom of God, and especially to the 
providential government of the Jewish peo- 
ple; regarding the import of the divine 
ordinances and appointments before Christ, 
for example, of the law in reference to the 
highest end contemplated—the kingdom of 
God; regarding the way and manner in 
which the death and resurrection of Christ 
bear upon the salvation of the world; as 
wellas regarding the changes yet in the 
womb of the future, and, in particular, the 
events which are linked with the second 
coming of the Lord. Similarly, and still 
more in detail, Estius. According to de 
Wette, portions of this wisdom are to be 
found inthe Epistle to the Romans, in the 


nation ; inthe Epistles to the Ephesians and 
Colossians, in the indications there given as 
to the divine plan of redemption and the 
person of Christ ; in our Epistle, chap. Xv. ; 
views of the same kind in Heb. vii-x., 
comp. iv. 11 ff. Osiander makes this godia 
to consist in the deeper dogmatic develop- 
ment of the gospel as regards its historical 
foundations and its eternal consequences 
reaching on to the consummation of the 
kingdom of God. Comp. Ewald, p. 189, 
according to whom its contents turn upon 
the gospel as the centre and cardinal point 
of all divine-human history, and for that 
very reason touch all the problems both of 
history as a whole, and of the creation. 
Hofmann rightly includes also the jfind@ 
glory of believers. 


48 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


cluding Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, and Olshausen, understand by the réAczoz 
the Christians generally, or the true Christians, to whom the apostle’s doctrine 
(codiav Aéyet TO KApvyya Kai TOV TpdTOY THO CwTHpiac, TO dia GTavpoV GwhHvat, TEAEi- 
ove 68 Tobe mextorevdrac, Chrysostom), appeared as wisdom, not as folly. (&) 
‘¢ a dicimus quae plena esse sapientiae judicabunt veri ac probi Christiani,” 
Grotius. But il. 2 is decisive against this view ; for there yéA4a denotes the 
instruction of beginners as distinguished from the cod/a (Bpaua). Comp. the 
appropriate remarks of Castalio on this passage. — codiav dé ob tT. aidy. tT. | wis- 
dom, however, which does not belong to this age (dé, as in Rom. Ui. 22, ix. 30 ; 
Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 8), which is not, like the Jewish and Hellenic philoso- 
phy, the product and intellectual property of the pre-Messianic age. Comp. 
1. 20. Aldvog tobrov cogiav dvonater THY éEwW, OG TpdcKatpoyv Kal TO aidve TObTW ovy- 
katadvouévnv, Theophylact. —oidé] also (in particular) not. —vrév apy. rf. 
aijv t.] These are the rulers generally (comp. Acts xiii. 27), the dominant 
powers (proceres) of the pre-Messianic time among Jews and Gentiles. But to say 
that Paul’s meaning is that he does not teach politics (Grotius), is to limit ~ 
his words in a way foreign to the connection ; he affirms generally that the 
cogia in question is a wisdom to which holders of temporal power are stran- 
gers. Comp. ver. 8. It is a mistake to explain the dpy. r. aiv. r. as refer- 
ring either to influential philosophers and men of learning? or to the demons, 
connecting it with 2 Cor. iv. 4, John xii. 31 (Marcion, Origen, some writ- 
ers referred to by Chrysostom and Theophylact, also Ambrosiaster, Estius, 
Bertholdt), both of these interpretations being incompatible with the words, 
and forbidden by ver. 8 ; or lastly, to the Jewish archontes alone (Cameron, 
Hammond, Vorstius, Lightfoot, Locke, Stolz, Rosenmiiller), which is con- 
trary to the general character of the expression, and not required by ver. 
8 (see on ver. 8). —rév xatapy.] which are done away with, i.e. cease to sub- 
sist (i. 28, xv. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Heb. i. 14), namely, when 
Christ returning establishes His kingdom. Comp. Rev. xvi.-xix. This 
reference is implied in the context by the emphatic repetition of tov aidvec 
tovrov. The expedient of explaining it into : ‘‘ Whose power and influence 
are broken and brought to nought by the gospel,” Billroth (comp. Flatt and 
Riickert), rationalizes the apostle’s conception, and does not even accord 
with history.—The present participle, as ini, 18. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7. 

Ver. 7. Ocot codiav| God’s philosophy, of which God is the possessor, who 
has made it known to those who proclaim it, ver. 10. This Occi is with 
great emphasis prefixed ; the repetition of Aadoiuev, too, carries with it a 
certain solemnity, comp. Rom. vili. 15 ; Phil. iv. 17. — év pvornpiw] does 
not belong to r7v aroxexp. (with which it was connected expressly as early 
as Theodoret ; comp. Grotius : ‘‘ quae diu in arcano recondita fuit”) but to 
Aahotuev,? not, however, in the sense : ‘‘secreto et apud pauciores” (Estius, 
Cornelius a Lapide), since there is no mention of a disciplina arcani (see on 


1 These are not even included (in opposi- phylact, and others, including Pott ; comp. 
tion to Chrysostom and others, including Neander: ‘‘the intellectual rulers of the 
Osiander), although the apyovres may have ancient world.’’) 
accepted their wisdom, played the part of 2 Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, Schrader, de 
patrons to them, etc. (Theodoret, Theo- Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. 


CHAP. II., 8. 49 


ver. 6), but rather : ly means of a secret; i.e. by our delivering what has been 
secret (a doctrine hidden from the human understanding, and revealed to 
us by God, see on Rom. xi. 25). To this is to be referred also the render- 
ing of Riickert and Neander : as a mystery. Most interpreters, however, 
join év pvornpiw With codiar, sc. oicav : God's secret wisdom (unknown but for 
revelation). So also Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Tittmann, Usteri, Ewald). 
But the article, although after the anarthrous cogiay not in itself absolutely 
necessary, would be omitted here at the expense of clearness. Paul would 
have expressed himself with ambiguity, while he might easily have avoided 
it by rv év wvotnpiw. On the other hand, if he joined év pvor. to Aarovuer, 
he could not, seeing that he wished to prefix 2a4. for the sake of emphasis, 
write otherwise. — tiv azoxexp.| as respects its nature, by virtue of which it 
not only had been hidden from all preceding generations, but remained 
unknown apart from divine revelation. Comp. vv. 9, 10; Rom. xvi. 25. 
The word,’ which in itself might be dispensed with, is added in order to 
introduce the following statement with completeness and solemnity. — fv 
mpowp. 6 Oed¢ x.t.A.] There is no ground here for supplying (with the major- 
ity of expositors, including Pott and Heydenreich) azoxadtrrev, yvopioa, 
or the like, or (with Olshausen) a dative of the person ; or yet for assum- 
ing, as do Billroth and Riickert, that Paul meant by 7 the object of the wis- 
dom, the salvation obtained through Christ. For xpodp. has its complete 
and logically correct reference in éi¢ défav ju. (comp. Eph. i. 5), so that the 
thought is.: ‘‘to which wisdom. God has, before the beginning of the ages of this 
world (in eternity), given the predestination that by it we should attain to 
glory.” This sic 06&. yu. corresponds significantly to the trav xatapy. of ver. 
6, and denotes the Messianic glory of the Christians which is to begin with 
the Parousia (Rom. viii. 17, 29 f. ; 1 Thess. ii. 12). That wisdom of God 
is destined in the eternal divine plan of salvation not to become (Hofmann) 
this glory, but to establish and to realizeit. This destination it attains in 
virtue of the faith of the subjects (i. 21) ; but the reference to the spiritual 
glorification on earth is not even to be assumed as included with the other (in 
opposition to de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and many older expositors), as 
also the correlative t7¢ déEy¢ in ver. 8 applies purely to the heavenly glory. 
Bengel says well: ‘‘olim revelandam, tum cum principes mundi destruen- 
tur.” It reveals itself then as the wisdom that makes blessed, having at- 
tained in the défa of believers the end designed for it by God before the 
beginning of the world. 

Ver. 8. “Hy] Parallel with the preceding 7, and referring to Osov codiav 
(Calvin, Grotius, and most commentators, including Flatt, Riickert, de 
Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not to dé. #uév (Tertullian contra Mare. v. 6, 
Camerarius, Pott, Billroth, Maier) ; for the essential point in the whole con- 
text is the non-recognition of that wisdom.' — ¢i yap éyvwoav x.7.2. | parenthet- 


1 The simple uniform continuation of the Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 282]), and as introducing a 
discourse by nv has a solemn emphasis here, new principal sentence. The asyndetic simi- 
as in Acts iy. 10, and especially often in the lar co-ordination of several relative clauses 
Epistle to the Ephesians. Allthelessreason is, from Homer onward (see Ameis on the 
is there for taking it, withHofmann,as equiv- Odyss. xxiii. 299, append.), a very common 
alent in this verse to ravrnv (Buttmann, newt. usage in the classics also. 


50 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO. THE CORINTHIANS. 


ical proof from fact for what has been just asserted ; for the aAAd in ver. 
9 refers to jv ovdeig . . . éyvoxev. The crucifixion of Christ, seeing that it 
was effected by Jewish and heathen rulers together, is here considered as 
the act of the dpy. rt. aidv. collectiwely. — tiv Kipiov tie d6€y¢] Christ is the 
Lord, and, inasmuch as His qualitative characteristic condition is that of the 
divine glory in heaven, from which He came and to which He has returned 
(John xvii. 5 ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. ili. 20 f. ; Col. ii. 1-4, al.), the Lord 
of glory. Comp. Jas. ii. 1. In a precisely analogous way God is called, in 
Eph. i. 17, 6 zargyp rao dééyc. Comp. Acts vil. 2; Ps. xxiv. 7 ; Heb. ix. 5. 
In all these passages the expression of the adjectival notion by the genitive 
has rhetorical emphasis. Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. This designa- 
tion of Christ, however, is purposely chosen by way of antithesis to éoraipucar 5 
for 6 oravpd¢ adogiacg sivat doxet, Chrysostom. Had the dpyovrec known that 
cogia Ocov, then they would also have known Christ as what He is, the Kipzo¢ 
tie d6=nc, and would have received and honoured instead of shamefully cruci- 
fying Him. But what was to them wisdom was simply nothing more than 
selfish worldly prudence and spiritual foolishness ; in accordance with it 
Annas and Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, acted. Comp., generally, Luke xxiii. 
34 ; Acts iii. 17. 

Ver. 9. ’AAA4] but, antithesis to fv ovdeic tOv apydvtwr T. al. T. EyvoOKev.— 
The passage of Scripture, which Paul now adduces, is to be translated : 
‘« What an eye hath not seen, nor an ear heard, and (what) hath not risen into 
the heart of a man (namely :) all that God hath prepared for them that love 
ITfim.” Yn the connection of our passage these words are still dependent 
upon Aadotuev. Paul, that is to say, instead of affirming something further 
of the wisdom itself, and so continuing with another 7 (which none of the 
rulers have known, but which), describes now the mysterious contents of this 
wisdom, and expresses himself accordingly in the neuter form (by 4), to 
which he was induced in the flow of his discourse by the similar form of 
the language of Scripture which floated before his mind. The construction 
therefore is not anacoluthic (Riickert hesitatingly ; de Wette and Osiander, 
both of whom hold that it loses itself in the conception of the mysteries refer- 
red to) ; neither is it to be supplemented by yéyove (Theophylact, Grotius). 
The connection with ver. 10, adopted by Lachmann (in his ed. min.), and in 
my first and second editions, and again resorted to by Hofmann : what no eye 
has seen, etc., God, on the other hand (dé, see on i. 23), has revealed to us, etc., 
is not sufficiently simple, mars the symmetry of the discourse, and is finally 
set aside by the consideration that, since the quotation manifestly does not 
go beyond dyaréow airéy, xaboc yéyparta logically would need to stand, 
not before, but after, 4, because in reality this ad, and not the xaflac¢ yéyparrat, 
would introduce the object of dmexaaupev. — xabdc yéyp.| Chrysostom and 
Theophylact are in doubt as to what passage is meant, whether a lost prophecy 
(so Theodoret), or Isa. lil. 15. Origen, again, and other Fathers (Fabri- 
cius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 342 ; Pseudepigr. N. T. 1. p. 1072 : Liicke, 
Kinleit. 2. Offenb. I. p. 235), with whom Schrader and Ewald agree, assume, 
amidst vehement opposition on the part of Jerome, that the citation is from 
the Revelation of Elias, in which Zacharias of Chrysopolis avers (Harmonia 


CHAP. IT.,' 10: 51 


Hwang. p. 343) that he himself had actually read the words. Grotius re- 
gards them as ‘‘e scriptis Rabbinorum, qui ea habuerunt ex traditione vet- 
ere.” Most interpreters, however, including Osiander and Hofmann, agree 
with Jerome (on Isa. lxiv. and ad Pammach. epist. ci.) in finding here a free 
quotation from Isa. lxiv. 4 (some holding that there is, besides, a reference 
to lii. 15, Ixv. 17; see especially Surenhusius, caradA. p. 526 ff., also. Rig- 
genbach in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 596 f. But the difference in sense— 
not to be got over by forced and artificial interpretation of the passage in 
Isaiah (see especially Hofmann)—and the dissimilarity in expression are too 
great, hardly presenting even faint resemblances ; which is never elsewhere 
the case with Paul, however freely he may make his quotations. There 
seems, therefore, to remain no other escape from the difficulty than to give 
credit to the assertion—however much repugnance may have been shown to 
it in a dogmatic interest from Jerome downwards—made by Origen and 
others, that the words were from the Apocalypsis Hliae. So, too, Bleek in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 330. But since it is only passages from the ca- 
nonical Scriptures that are ever cited by Paul with xcafdc¢ yéyp., we must at 
the same time assume that he intended to do so here also, but by some confu- 
sion of memory tock the apocryphal saying for a canonical passage possibly from 
the prophecies, to which the passages of kindred sound in Isaiah might easily 
give occasion. (F) Comp. also Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 298. — & d¢barude 
ov« elde k.T.2.| For similar designations in the classics and Rabbins of what 
cannot be apprehended by the senses or intellect, see Wetstein and Light- 
foot, Horae, p. 162. Comp. Empedocles in Plutarch, Mor. p. 17 E: ob? 
émidepxta Tad’ avdpdow, ob7’ éxaxovord, obte vd TeptAnntd. With respect to 
avaB. éxt Kapo., 37 Wy 9, to rise up to the heart, that is, become a con- 
sciously apprehended object of feeling and thought, so that the thing enters 
as a conception into the sphere of activity of the inner life, comp. on Acts 
Vii. 23. — moic¢ ayar. avtdév] z.e. in the apostle’s view : for the true Chris- 
tians.' See on Rom. viii. 28: What God has prepared for them is the salva- 
tion of the Messianic kingdom. Comp. Matt. xxv. 34. Constitt. Apost. vii. 
32. 2: of 0&8 dixatoe TOopebaovTar eic Canv atOviov KAnpovoporvrrTec 
éxeiva, & dpfaApoc ovK Eide K.T.A. 

Ver. 10. Having thus set forth the hitherto hidden character of the divine 
cogia, Paul now turns to its unveiling, as a result of which it was that that 
Aadovuev of ver. 6 f. took place. In doing this he puts juiv emphatically 
first in the deep consciousness of the distinction implied in so signal a mark 
of divine favour. The object of azexdd. is the immediately preceding 4 
yroiu“acev K.T.A. — piv] plural, as AaAovpev in ver. 6, and therefore neither to 
be referred to the apostle alone (Rosenmiiller, Riickert, and others), nor to 
all Christians (Billroth, etc.). — dca rot rvebu. aitov] The Holy Spirit, pro- 


1 Clement, ad Cor. I. 34, in quoting this be canonical, which is explained, however, 
same passage (with his usual formula for by the fact of his being acquainted with 
scriptural quotations, A¢ye. ydp), has here our Epistle. The Constitt. apost. too, Vii. 32. 
Tois Urouevovow avtév, remembering per: 2, have rots ayar@ou.v avrdv. The so-called 
haps Isa. lxiv. 4in the LXX. Clement also, second Epistle of Clement, chap. xi., has 
there can be no doubt, held the passage to the passage only as far as avé8y. 


\ 


52 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ceeding forth from God as the personal principle of Christian enlightenment, 
of every Christian endowment, and of the Christian life, is the medium, in 
His being communicated to men (ver. 12), of the divine revelation ; He is 
the bearer of it ; Eph. i. 17, iii. 8,5; 1 Cor. xii. 11, xiv. 6, al. —1d yap 
rvevua «.7.A.| Herewith begins the adducing of proof for that juiv 62 arexdd- 
vwev «.7.A. Which continues on to ver. 12, to this effect, namely: For 
the Spirit is familiar with the mysteries of God, because He alone stands in 
that unique relation as respects knowledge to God, which corresponds to the re- 
lation of the human spirit to man (vv. 10, 11) ; but what we have recewed is 
no other than this Spirit of God, in order that we might know the salvation of 
God (ver. 12), so that no doubt remains that we have actually the aoxdaa- 
vyve in question through the Spirit. That 7d rvedua means not the human 
spirit, but the Holy Spirit, is certain from what goes before and from vv. 
11, 12. — épevva] rightly interpreted by Chrysostom : ov« ayvoiac, AW axpiBov¢ 
yvocewe évtavla 7d épevvav évodecxtixdv. Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 1 ; Rom. viii. 27 ; 
Rey. ii. 23. The word expresses the activity of this knowledge. But Paul 
was not thinking of ‘‘God’s knowing Himself in man” (Billroth, comp. 
Baur), or of any other such Hegelian views as they would impute to him, 
— ravra] all things, without limitation. Comp. Wisd. vii. 23 ; Ps. cxxxix. 
7. 1d B40n Tod Ocod] Comp. Judith viii. 14 : BaAoc xapdiag avOpdarov 3 see on 
Rom. xi. 33, also Plato, Vheaet. p. 183 E. The expression: ‘‘ depths of 
God,” denotes the whole rich exhaustless fulness which is hidden in God,— 
all, therefore, that goes to make up His being, His attributes, His thoughts, 
plans, decrees, etc. These last (see vv. 9, 12), the PaftBovdov (Aeschylus, 
Pers. 148) of the Godhead, are included; but we are not to suppose that 
they alone are meant. The opposite is ra Babéa tod Latava, Rev. ii. 24. 
The depths of God, unsearchable by the cognitive power of created spirits 
(comp. Rom. xi. 38), are penetrated by the cognitive activity of His own 
immanent principle of life and manifestation, so that this, 7.e. the Holy 
Spirit, is the power [Potenz] of the divine self-knowledge. God is the 
subject knowing and the object known in the intrinsic divine activity of 
the Spirit, who is the substratum of the absolute self-consciousness of the 
Godhead, in like manner as the human spirit is the substratum of the 
human Ego. 

Ver. 11 assigns the reason for the kai rd Bay Tod Ocov just mentioned, and 
that in such a way as to represent the searching of these 407 as exclusively 
pertaining to the Spirit of God, according to the analogy of the relation be- 
tween the spirit of man and man himself. — avpdrev] should neither, with 
Grotius, be held superfluous nor, with Tittmann, be suspected (it is wanting 
in A, Or. 1, Athan. Cyr. Vigil. taps.) ; on the contrary, it is designed to 
carry special emphasis, like roi avOpérov afterwards (which is wanting in 
F G, and some Fathers), hence also the position chosen for it: avOpdrav 
Ta TOV avOparov : no man knows what is man’s, save the spirit of the man which 
is in him. Comp. Prov. xx. 27. Were what is peculiar to him not known 





_ 1 The 76 év aire is an argumentative defini- hence 7d mvetua, not 7 wvxy. Comp. De- 
tion.—In the man the subject knowing is litzsch, biblische Psychologie, p. 198; Krumm, 
the Ego of the personal self-consciousness, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 16 f. 


CHAP, If., 12, 53 


to the spirit itself of the man (who is made the object of contemplation), in 
that case no man would have this knowledge of the man; it would not 
come within the region of human knowing at all. The man’s own spirit 
knows it, but no other man.—We are not, with many expositors, including 
Pott and Flatt, to add Ba; by way of supplement to ra rot avOp. or to ra 
tov Ocov. This would be a purely arbitrary limitation of the universal 
statement, to which ra Bay, as a qualitative expression, is subordinated. 
What are meant are the relations in general of God and of man, more es- 
pecially, from the context, the inner ones, The illustration adduced: by 
Grotius serves to bring out the sense more clearly : ‘‘ Principum abditos 
sensus quis novit nisi ipse principis animus ?” — éyvaxe| cognita habet. See 
Bernhardy, p. 378. For the rest, this ovdel¢ éyvwxe is, as a matter of course, 
said not as in distinction from the Son (Luke x. 22), but from the creatures. 


Remark.—The comparison in ver. 11 ought not to be pressed beyond the 
point compared. We are neither, therefore, to understand it so that the Spirit 
of God appears as the soul of the divine substance (Hallet; see, on the other 
hand, Heilmann, Opusc. II.), nor as if He were not distinct from God (see, on 
the contrary, ver. 10), but simply so that the Spirit of God, the ground of the 
divine personal life, appearsin His relation to God as the principle of the divine 
self-knowledge, in the same way as the principle of the human self-knowledge is 
the mvedua of the man, which constitutes his personal life. Hence God is 
known only by His Spirit, as the man is only by his spirit, as the vehicle of his 
own self-consciousness, not by another man. With 70 rvevua Tov Oeov, Paul’ 
does not again join 76 év ait@, because the man’s spirit indeed is shut up in 
the man, but not so the Divine Spirit in God ; the latter, on the contrary, goes 
forth also from Him, is communicated, and is rd mvedua To éx Tod Oeod. See 
ver. 12. 


Ver. 12. Aé] leading on to the second half*of the demonstration which 
began with 7d yap 7veiya in ver. 10 (see on ver. 10). —zueic] as juiv in ver. . 
10. — 16 rvedvpa Tov Kécpov| i.e. the spirit which unbelieving mankind has. This. 
spirit is the diabolic rvevua, that is, the spirit proceeding forth from the devil, , 
under whose power the xdéoyoc lies, and whose sphere of action it is.. See 
2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 11, 12, ii. 2. Comp. John xii. 31; 1 John iv. 3, v. 
19. Had we received this spirit,—and here Paul glances back at the apyov- 
Te¢ Tov al@voc¢ Tovrov in vv. 6, 8,—then assuredly the knowledge of the bless-. 
ings of eternity would have remained closed for us, and (see ver. 13) in- 
stead of utterances taught by the Spirit we should use the language of the 
human wisdom of the schools. It is indeed the TvEvua THE TAGVAC AS CON- 
trasted with the mveipua rij¢ aAnfeiac, 1 Johniv. 6. Most commentators take 
To mvevpa in the sense of mode of thought and view, so that the meaning would , 
be : ‘‘Non sumus instituti sapientia mundana et saeculari,” Estius. So- 
Theophylact, and after him Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many epee includ- - 
ing Morus, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, erdonreren, Ae Wette, Maier, and simi-,. 
larly Pott. But, according to ver. 10, 7d rvevpa must dencte, in keeping . 


1[So also Stanley and Hodge, but Beet and Principal Brea agree with Meyer, ween 
view is clearly correct.—T. W. C.] 


54 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


with the context, the objective spirit opposed to the Spirit of God ; and that 
is, according to the decided dualistic view of the apostle (comp. esp. Eph. 
ii. 2), the diabolic xveiua, which has blinded the understanding of the un- 
believers, 2 Cor. iv. 4. Billroth’s explanation : that it is the non-absolute 
spirit, the finite, in so far as it persists for itself and does not resolve itself 
into the divine, is a modern un-Pauline importation ; and this holds, too, 
of Hofmann’s exposition : that it is the spirit, in virtue of which the world 
is conscious of itself, knowing itself, however, only in that way in which 
alone its sinful estrangement from God leaves it possible for it to do so, not 
in God, namely, but out of God. If that is not to be taken as the diabolic 
spirit, then the conception is simply an un-Pauline fabrication, artificially 
worded so as to explain away the diabolic character. Lastly, Riickert’s view, 
that Paul meant: ‘‘we have received our rvetua not from the world, but 
from God,” cannot even be reconciled with the words of the passage. — 76 
éx T. Ocov] The éx is employed by Paul here not in order to avoid the appear- 
ance of making this zvetya the principle that determines the action of God 
(so Kling in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1839, p. 485), which were a needless precau- 
tion, but because this form of expression has a significant adaptation to the 
iva eid@uev «.T.A.; there can be do doubt about this knowing, if it proceeds 
from the Spirit which is from God (which has gone forth upon believers ; 
comp. ver. 11, 7d év ait), John xv. 26. — iva eidduev x.t.2.| the divine pur- 
pose in imparting the Spirit which proceeded forth from God. Thisclause, 
expressive of design, containing the object of the amexdavpev in ver. 10, 
completely winds up the adducing of proof for the juiv dé arexdd. 6 0. dud T. 
TV. QUT. —Ta bTd T. Ocov yap. yuiv| are the blessings of the Messianic king- 
dom, the possession of which is bestowed by divine grace on the Christians 
(juiv), not, indeed, before the Parousia as an actual possession, but as an 
deal one to be certainly entered upon hereafter (Rom. viii. 24, 30; Col. iii. 
3, 4); comp. Rom. vi. 23; Eph. 11. 8, 9. That to take it ideally in this 
way js correct (in opposition to Hofmann), is clear from the consideration 
that ra yapiobévt7a must be identical with 4@ jroiuacev 6 Oeds k.T.A. in Ver. 9, 
and with the dd&a ju. in ver. 7. 

Ver. 13. Having thus in vv. 10-12 given the proof of that jyuiv 62 arexd2.. 
x.t.4:, the apostle goes on now to the manner in which the things revealed 
were proclaimed, passing, therefore, from the eidévar ta yap. to the Aareiv of 
them. The manner, negative and positive, of this AaAeiv (comp. ver. 4) he 
links to what has gone before simply by the relative : which (namely, 7a. . . 
xap.ob. 7.) we also (in accordance with the fact of our having received the 
Spirit, ver. 12) utter not in words learned of human wisdom (dialectics, 
rhetoric, etc.), but in those learned of the Spirit. The genitives : dvOpwr. ood. 
and rvebuatoc, are dependent on didaxroi¢ (John vi. 45). See Winer, pp. 182, 
178 [E. T. 242, 236]. Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 1135. Comp. Pindar, Ol. ix. 
153 : roAAoi 62 Sidaxtaic avOpoTwv apetaic KA~o¢ Hpovoav EXéoPat’ dvev Jé Oeod k.T.A., 
comp. Nem. ili. 71. Sophocles, Hl. 336 : taua vovberquata keivyng didaxra. It 
istrue that the genitives might also be dependent upon Aédyoue (Fritzsche, 
Diss. IT. in 2 Cor. p. 27); but the context, having didaxroicg mrvebuaroc, 18 
against this. To take didaxroic (with Ewald) as meaning, according to the 


hy 


CHAP, II., 13. 5d 


common classical usage, learnable, quae doceri possunt (see especially Demosth. 
1413. 24 ; Plato, Prot. p. 319 B: ov didaxtov eivar pnd’ br’ avoporwv Tapackev- 
aoTov avOparoc), does not agree so well with vv. 4 and 15.—The suggestio 
verborum, here asserted, is reduced to its right measure by d:daxroic¢ ; for 
that word excludes all idea of anything mechanical, and implies the living 
self-appropriation of that mode of expression which was specifically suitable 
both to the divine inspiration and to its contents (‘‘ verba rem sequuntur,” 
Wetstein),—an appropriation capable of being connected in very different 
forms with different given individualities (Peter, Paul, Apollos, James, etc.), 
and of presenting itself in each case with a corresponding variety. — rvevua- 
TLKOIG TvEevuaTLKa ovyKpivovtec| connecting’ spiritual things with spiritual, not 
uniting things unlike in nature, which would be the case, were we to give 
forth what was revealed by the Holy Spirit in the speech of human wisdom, 
in philosophic discourse, but joining to the matters revealed by the Spirit 
(xvevuarexoic) the speech also taught by the Spirit (rvevyarixa),—things con- 
sequently of like nature, ‘‘spiritualibus spiritualia componentes” (Castalio). 
So in substance also Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Wolf, Baumgarten, 
Kling in the Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 487, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, etc., 
and rightly, since this sense suits the connection singularly well, and does 
not in any degree clash with the classical use of ovyxpivecyv (Valckenaer, p. 
134 f.; Porson, ad Med. 136). Plato has it frequently in this meaning, and 
in contrast to dvaxpiverv. See Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 290 f. Other commen- 
tators, while also taking rvevyuar. as neuter, make ovyxpivery, explicare, namely, 
either : explaining the N. T. doctrine from the types of the O. T. (Chrysostom 
and his successors’), or: ‘‘exponentes ea, quae prophetae Spiritu Dei acti 
dixere, per ea, quae Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit” (Grotius, Krebs), 
or: ‘‘spiritualibus verbis spiritualia interpretantes’” (Elsner, Mosheim, 
Bolten, Neander). But the first two of these renderings are against the 
context, and all the three are against the wsus loquendi ; for ovyxpivew is 
never absolutely ¢tnterpretari, either in profane Greek (in which, among 
later writers, as also in2 Cor. x. 12, Wisd. vii. 29, xv. 18, 1 Macc. x. 71, it very 
often means to compare ; comp. Vulgate : comparantes, and see Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 278) or in the LXX. With the latter it is indeed the common 
word for the interpretation of dreams (5D, see Gen. xl. 8, 16, 22, xl. 12, 
15 ; Dan. v. 12); but in such cases (comp. the passages from Philo, where 
dtaxpivety occurs, in Loesner, p. 273) we have to trace it back to the literal 
signification of judging,* namely, as to what was to be indicated by the 


1 Not proving, as Theodore of Mopsuestia 
takes it: da t&v tod mvevpatos amodei£ewy 
Thv Tov mvevpatos SidacKkadiayv musTovmeda, 

2So, too, Theodoret: €xouev yap THs mad- 
atas Stadjxns thy maptupiary, Kal du éxeivns THY 
kawynyv BeBarovmev’ mvevpatiKh yap Kakeivy 
... Kat dca Tov TUTwy Seikyvumev THY adrjecav. 
Several of the older interpreters follow the 
Greeks in substance, including Calovius, 
who, on the ground of this passage, declares 
himself against the explanation of Scripture 
from profane writers ! 


3 Hence, in Dan. vy. 16 (in the history of 
the mysterious writing on the wall, which 
had to be judged of with respect to its 
meaning): dvvacat xpimata ovykpivat, thou 
canst pronounce utterances of judgment. 
Comp. the phrase, recurring more than 
once in that same story of Belshazzar, in 
Dan. Vv. : thy ovyKpiow yvwpigery, Or: avayyéeA- 
Ae: to make known or declare the judg- 
ment (as to what that marvellous writing 
might signify), 


& 


56 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


vision in the dream (comp. xpivery Td onuarvduevoy Tov overpatov in Josephus, 
Antt. ii. 2. 2, also the ’Ovecpoxpitixad of Artemidorus). (@) The meaning, to 
judge, however, although instances of it may be established in Greek writers 
also (Anthol. vii. 182 ; Polybius, xiv. 8. 7, xii. 10. 1; Lucian. Soloec. 5), 
would be unsuitable here, for this reason, that the phrase rvevuarixoi¢ rrvev- 
patria, both being taken as neuter, manifestly, according to the context, 
expresses the relation of matter and form, not the judging of the one 
mvevwatixdy by the other (Ewald), notwithstanding that Luther, too, adopts 
a similar interpretation : ‘‘ and judge spiritual things spiritually.” . Lastly, it 
is incorrect to take rvevyarixoic aS Masculine, and render : explaining things 
revealed by the Spirit to those who are led by the Spirit (the same as redetove in 
ver. 6; comp. Gal. vi. 1).’. To the same class belongs the exposition of 
Hofmann, according to whom what is meant is the solution of the problem as 
to how the world beyond and hereafter reveals and foreshows itself in what 
God’s grace has already bestowed upon us (ver. 12) in a predictive sign as it 
were,—a solution which has spiritual things for its object, and takes place | 
for those who are spiritual. But the text does not contain either a contrast — 
between the world here and that hereafter, or a problematic relation of the 

one to the other ; the contrast is introduced into rad yapiofévra in ver. 12, 

and the problem and its predictive sign are imported into ovykpivovtec.? 

Again, itis by no means required by the connection with ver. 14 ff. that we 

should take rvevuarcxoi¢ as masculine ; for ver. 14 begins a new part of the 

discourse, so that wWuynd¢ avIpwro¢e only finds its personal contrast in 6 dé 

mvevuatixéc in ver. 15. Tittmann’s explanation (Synon. p. 290 f., and comp. 

Baur) comes back to the sense : conveying (conferentes) spiritual things to 

spiritual persons, without linguistic precedent for it. — Note the weighty 

collocation : rvebuatoc, rvevpatikoic, mvevuatiKd. 

Ver. 14. To receive such teaching, however, in which rvevyarixd are united 
with mvevuatixoic, every one has not the capacity ; a psychical man appre- 
hends not that which is the Spirit of God, etc. — wuytd¢ avOpwror is the 
opposite of the zvevuatixée who has received the Holy Spirit (vv. 12 f., 15) ; 
he is therefore one rveiua (the Holy Spirit) uy éyov (Jude 19).. Such a 
man—who is not essentially different from the capxixéd¢ (see on iii. 1), 
but the mental side of whose nature is here brought forward by the word 
puyixéc —is not enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, but is gov-. 
erned by the yuvy7, the principle of life for the capz, so that the sphere in 
which he works and strivesis not that of the divine truth and the divine 
Coy, but the purely human activity of the understanding, and, as regards 
practical things, the interests of the life of sense, the ércOvuiac wvyexai, 4 
Mace. 1. 82, the érifuuiar dvOpérav, not the béAnua Ocov, 1 Pet. iv. 2. Comp. 
generally, Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 270. The higher principle of life, the 


1 This is the view of Pelagius, Sedulius, XepiodvévTa yulvy, onmeta OvTAa TOV med- 
Theophylact (suggested only), Thomas, AdvtTwyv, & Kal cuyKpivomev... mveEv- 
Estius, Clericus, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Pott, paTlikois mvevuatiKa AaAovvTes. Comp. on 
Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Rickert. the latter expression, Maximus Tyrius, xxii, 

2? Hofmann expounds as if Paul had writ- 4: cuvera cuvetois Aéywr, 


ten in ver. 12 f.: ta HOy viv vrd 7, QO. 


CHAP, I1., 14, ys 


human zveiua,' which he has, is not laid hold of and quickened by the Holy 
Spirit ; the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, who operates upon the human 
spirit and thereby brings about the renewal of the man (comp. John iii. 6), 
has not yet taken place with him ; hence the psychical man is really the nat- 
ural man, z.e. not yet enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, not 
yet born again,’ although, at the same time, wuyied¢e means not naturalis (i.e. 
@vorxdc in contrast to didaxréc, teyvixdc, and the like ; comp. Polyb. vi. 4. 
7 3 dvotkOc Kal dxatacKebwc), but animalis (Vulgate). Comp. wvyKy codia as 
contrasted with that dvwfev catepyouévn, Jas. ii. 15. Many have taken up 
the idea in a one-sided way, either in a merely intellectual reference (rdv 
fudvolg Toi¢ oiKeioLg apKobmevov Aoyiopoic, Theodoret ; see also Chrysostom, The- 
ophylact, Beza, Grotius, Heydenreich, Pott ; comp. too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 
451), or ina merely ethical one (a man obedient to sensual desires ; so, and 
in some cases, with an exaggerated stress on the sinfulness involved, it is 
interpreted by Erasmus, Vitringa, Limborch, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Valck- 
enaer, Krause, and others). The two elements cannot be separated from 
each other without quite an arbitrary act of division. — oi déyera:] The 
question whether this means : he is wnsusceptible of it, does not understand 
(Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Riickert, et al.) ; or : he does not 
accept, respuit (Peshito, Erasmus, and others, including Tittmann, Flatt, 
Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier), is decided in favour of the latter 


\ 

1 The distinction between Wvx7 and rredua, 
as that which separates from each other 
the agencies of the lower and the higher 
life, answers certainly to the Platonic three- 
fold division of man’s nature into body, 
soul, and spirit (see, especially, Olshausen, 
de naturae humanae trichotomia N. T. scrip- 
toribus recepta, in his Opusc. Berol. 1834, p. 
143 ff.; and, on the other side, Hahn, Theol. 
d. N. T..1. p. 391 ff.). Not, however, as if 
Paul had borrowed this trichotomy (see, 
especially, 1 Thess. v. 23; comp. also Heb. 
iy. 12) from the Platonic philosophy, but 
this Platonic type of anthropology, current 
also with Philo and the Rabbinical writers, 
had, like the phrase o éow and 6 é&w avdpwros 
(see on Eph. iii. 16), become popular (comp. 
Josephus, Antt. i. 1. 2, according to which 
God breathed tvevua and wvxyv into man 
when first formed, and subsisted alongside 
of the twofold conception and the cor- 
responding mode of expression (v. 3 f., vii. 
Bares COV vil, 14s) ROM. ‘Vill, 10. f..,. @.). 
Comp. Liinemann on1 Thess. v. 23. Luther, 
as early as 1521, has some excellent remarks 
on the trichotomy (printed also in De- 
litzsch’s 0ib1. Psychol. p. 392 f.). He likens 
the mvedua to the Sanctum sanctorum, the 
woxy to the Sanctum, and the caua to the 
Atrium. Against Hofmann’s arbitrary ex- 
plaining away of a real threefold division 
(in his Schrifibeweis, I. p. 297 f.), see Krumm, 
de notionibus pyschol. Pauli, p. 1 ff.; De- 


litzsch, loc. cit. p. 87 ff. ; Ernesti, Ursprung d. 
Stinde, II. p. 76f. We may add, that Hof- 
mann is wrong in saying, with respect to 
this passage, that it has nothing whatever 
to do with the question about the dichot- 
omy or trichotomy. It has to do with it, 
inasmuch as in virtue of the contrast 
between Yuxixos and mvevuatikos, the pux7 
cannot be the seat and sphere of operation 
of the Divine Spirit, which is to be found 
rather in the human smvedua, and conse- 
quently must be conceived as specifically 
distinct from the latter. 

2 Luther’s gloss is: ‘*The natural man is 
as he is apart from grace, albeit decked out 
as bravely as may be with all the reason, 
skill, sense, and faculty in the world.”’ 
Comp. Calovius, who insists with justice 
against Grotius, that Wuy-Kos and capkciKos 
differ only ‘‘ratione jformailis significa- 
tionis.”» Paul might have used gcapkxuxds 
here too (see on iii. 1); but wWuxexds nat- 
urally suggested itself to him as correlative 
to déxerbar ; for the wvx7y cannot be the vecep- 
taculum of that which is of the Spirit of God. 
According to Ewald, the word points to the 
Greek philosophers, being a gentle way of des- 
ignating them. But the expression is quite 
general; and how easy it would have been 
for Paul to let it be definitely known that 
the reference was to the philosophers (by 
copés tov kdopnov, for example, or in some 
other way) ! 


58 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


view by the standing use of déyeo@a in the N. T. when referring to doctrine. 
See Luke viii. 13 ; Acts viii. 14, xi. 1, xvii. 11 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 18. Comp. 
2 Thess. ii. 10; 2 Cor. vill. 17. —ra\ rod rv.] what comes from the Spirit. 
This applies both to the matter and form of the teaching. See ver. 13. — 
pwpia yap . . . yvovac| ground of this ob déyerat «.7.A.: It is folly to him, 
i.e. (a3 i. 18) it stands to him in the practical relation of being something 
absurd, and he is not in a position to discern it. The latter clause is not 
covered by the former (Hofmann), but appends to the relation of the object 
to the subject the corresponding relation of the subject to the object.— 
The statement of the reason for both of these connected clauses is: 6ére 
mvevuaTiKag avaxpiverat: because they (ra tov rveby.) are judged of after a 
spiritual fashion (iv. 8, xiv. 24), z.e. because the investigative (ava) judgment 
of them (the searching into and estimating their nature and meaning) is a . 
task which, by reason of the nature of the subject-matter to be dealt with, 
can be performed in accordance with its own essential character in no other 
way than by means of a proving and judging empowered and guided by the Holy 
Spirit (a power which is wanting to the wuyexdc). Tvevwatixoc, that is to 
say, refers not to the human spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (see ver. 13) who 
fills the human spirit, and by the hallowing influence of divine enlighten- 
ment and power capacitates it for the avaxpiverv of the doctrines of teachers 
filled with the Spirit who address it, so that this avaxpivew is an activity 
which proceeds tn a mode empowered and guided by the Spirit. We may add 
that avaxpiv. does not mean : must be judged of (Luther and many others, 
among whom are Tittmann, Flatt, and Pott), but it expresses the character- 
istic relation, which takes place ; they are subject to spiritual judgment. That 
is an axiom. But this very sort of avdxpicic is what is lacking in the wuyexdc. 

Ver. 15. He who is spiritual, on the other hand, judges all things, but is for 
his own part (avtéc) judged by no one; so lofty is his position, high above all 
the wvyixoic, to whom he is a riddle, not to be read by their unenlightened 
powers of judging, to which ra rot rveduatoc are folly !— 6 mvevuartixéc] he 
who stands under the influence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened and led by 
Him. Comp. on rvevyarixé¢ in ver. 14. — ta révra] (see the critical remarks)’ 
receives from the context no further limitation than that of the article, 
which is not wnsuitable (Hofmann), but denotes the totality of what presents 
itself to his judging, so that it does not apply merely to ra Tov rvebuatog 
(Ewald : ‘‘all the deepest and most salutary divine truths”), the avaxpivery 
of which, on the part of the zvevyarixdc, is a matter of course, but means ad] 


1J%n connection with the reading marta, 
those who take it as masculine explain the 
clause very variously; either; “ Quando 
audit alium loquentem vel docentem, illico 
dignoscere potest et dijudicare, utrum sit 
ex Deo necne”’ (Bos, Alberti); or; ‘*Ego 
quidem... quemlibet profanum ... diju- 
dicare adeoque a mvevmatckois 8. Vere collus- 
tratis dignoscere possum’ (Pott); or: 
““Convincere quemlibet profanum erroris 
potest’’ (Nédsselt, Rosenmiiller). Were the 
reading genuine, and mavra masculine, it is 


only the first of these renderings that would 
be admissible; for, according to ver. 14, 
avakp. cannot mean erroris convincere 
(against Nosselt), and to restrict wavra to 
the profane would be entirely unwarranted 
by the context, as is plain from mvevuatiKas 
avaxpiverac in ver. 14 (against Nodsselt and 
Pott). Atthe same time, it would also be 
arbitrary in adopting the first view to refer 
it only to the loqué or docere, and not also 
to deeds and other expressions of the life. 


GHAP? IT. 116: 59 


objects that come within the sphere of his judgment. To everything that 
comes before him he can assign the right estimate in virtue of his power of 
judgment, enlightened and upheld by the Holy Spirit. He has the true 
critical eye of the dox:wdfev (1 Thess. v. 21) for all that offers itself to him 
to be judged. How often has Paul himself displayed this avaxpioue rvevuarinh, 
and that, too, in matters not connected with doctrine, under situations the 
most varied ! ¢.g. in his wise availing himself of circumstances when perse- 
cuted and put on trial, during his last voyage, etc.; in his decisions 
concerning matrimonial questions, contendings at law, slavery, collections, 
and the like, in regard to which he manages with consummate tact, and 
with the most wonderful clearness, precision, and impartiality, to subject 
everything to the standard of a higher spiritual point of view ; in his esti- 
mate of the different persons with whom he comes into contact ; in the mode 
in which he adapts himself to given relations ; in his sublime judgments, 
such as ili. 22 ; in his powerful self-witness, 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff. ; in his noble in- 
dependence from earthly things, 1 Cor. vii. 29 ff.; Phil. iv. 11 ff.?— 7’ 
ovdevéc] namely, who is not also rvevwarixdc. This follows necessarily from 
the foregoing 6 rvevuar. advaxpiver Ta wavtTa. Comp. too, 1 Johniv. 1. The 
standpoint of the psychical man is too low, and his mode of thought too 
foreign in its presuppositions and principles, for him to be able to under- 
stand and judge of the pneumatic. In like manner, the blind (see as early 
as Chrysostom and Theophylact) cannot judge of the painter, nor the deaf 
of the musician.—How Roman Catholic writers have sought to render ver. 
15, standing opposed as it does to the authority claimed by the church, ser- 
viceable to their own side, may be seen, ¢.g., in Cornelius & Lapide : ‘‘ Sin 
autem nova oriatur quaestio in fide aut moribus, eaque obscura et dubia, 
eadem prudentia dictat homini spirituali . . . ejusdem Spiritus judicio 
recurrendum esse ad superiores, ad doctores, ad eccelesiam Romanam quasi mat- 
ricem,” ete. 

Ver. 16. Proof for the aird¢g dé in’ ovdevde avaxpivera. ‘* For in order to 
judge of the rvevuatixdc, one would need to have known the mind of Christ, which 
we rvevpatiKot are in possession of —to be able to act the part of teacher to Christ.” 
The form of this proof is an imperfect syllogism, the last proposition in 
which, as being self-evident, is not expressed.?, The major proposition is 
clothed in the words of Isa. xl. 13 (substantially after the LXX.), comp. 
Rom. xi. 34. There, indeed, Kipioc applies to God ; but Paul, appropriat- 
ing the words freely for the expression of his own thought, applies it here 
to Christ (against Calvin, Grotius, and most older interpreters, also Flatt, 
_ Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann), as the minor proposition mjuei¢ dé x.7.4. proves. — 
The vov¢ Kupiov is the understanding of the Lord, embracing His thoughts, 
judgments, measures, plans, etc., the vove being the faculty where these 


1 (Surely here the author goes beyond — struct Him: but we, we mvevuarixoi, are they 

the scope of the passage, whichis limited who have the mind of Christ; therefore we 

to the things of the Spirit. So Hodge and are they also whom no one can know 80 as to 

Poor.—T. W. C.] instruct them, that is, just they who vm’ ovée- 
2 Fully expressed, it would run thus: Vo vos avaxpivovrat, ver. 15. 

one can know the mind of Christ so as to in- 


60 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO- THE CORINTHIANS. 


originate and are elaborated. The conception is not identical with that of 
the xvevua Xpicrod (against Billroth, Neander, and many others), which 
rather, when imparted to man, makes his voice the vove Xpicrod, not being itself 
the vovc X., but that which constitutes its substratum. — b¢ ov BiB. avrév] qui 
instructurus sit eum, i.e. in order (after thus coming to know him) to instruct 

Him. See on this use of éc, Matthiae, II. p. 1068 ; Kiihner, II. p. 529 ff. 

Regarding cvyPuBdfev, which is frequent in the LXX. in the sense of instruere, 

docere, but does not occur with that meaning in Greek writers, see Schleus- 
ner, Thes. V. p. 154. This d¢ cvu8. airdv is not ‘‘ rather superfluously” taken 
in along with the rest of the quotation (Riickert), but is included as essen-- 
tial to the proof of the im’ obdevdg avaxpiverat, since the forming a judgment 
assumes the capacity to instruct (act as master). This, then, is what he 
who would judge the zvevwarixoi must be capable of doing with respect to 
Ohrist, since these have the mind of Christ. Chrysostom says well: é¢ 
ovuBiBdoer avTov, ody adxAde mpootOnKev, GAAA zpdc 6 eimev Hn, STL TOV TrEvpaTLKdY 

ovdete avaxpiver’ et yap eidévar ovdele dbvatat Tod Oeov (rather Christ’s) tov voir, 

TOAA® wadrdaov diddckew Kai dtopOoicbat.—To refer airév, with Nésselt (Opuse. 

II. p. 187 f.), to the vevyarixde (so, too, Rosenmiiller and Tittmann, J.c. p. 

294), is an involved construction rendered necessary only by failure to 

catch the simple course of proof. — jueic dd voiv X . éy. | the minor proposition, 

with the emphasis on 7jueic, and the explanatory Xprorov in piace of Kupiov. 

Paul includes himself along with the rest among the zvevuarixoi. These are 
the possessors (éyouev) of the mind of Christ. For, since they have the Spirit 
of Christ (Rom. viii. 9, 16), and since Christ is in them (Rom. viii. 10 ; 2 
Cor. xiii. 5), their votc, too, can be no mental faculty different in kind from 
the voi¢ Xporov, but must, on the contrary, be as ideally one with it, as it is 
true that Christ Himself lives in them (Gal. ii. 20), and the heart of Christ 
peats in them (Phil. i. 8), and He speaks in them (2 Cor. xiii. 3). Comp. 
respecting this indwelling of Christ in His believers, the idea in Gal. iii. 27 ; 
Rom. xiii. 14. Ob yap TlAdrwvoc, oidé TUv6ayépov, says Chrysostom, aay 6 
Xptoro¢e Ta éavrov Ti juetépa évéOyke diavoia. Many commentators (not recog- 
nizing the process of proof) have interpreted éyouev as perspectam habemus 
(see Tittmann, l.c.), asé.g. Rosenmiiller and Flatt : ‘‘We know the mean- 
ing of the doctrine of Christ ;” or Grotius : ‘‘ Novimus Dei consilia, quae 
Christo fuere revelata.” 


Nores py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(x) “The! perfect’ OV era, 


Seeing interpreters are so nearly equally divided between the two views 
which may be taken of this text, it may be well to consider the argument for 
the opinion which makes ‘‘perfect’’ simply another name for believers. It is 
thus presented by Dr. Hodge: ‘1. Those who regarded Paul’s doctrine as 
foolishness were not the babes in Christ, but the unrenewed, ‘ the wise of this 
world ;” consequently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced Chris- 
tians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole context, the opposition is 

between ‘the called’ or converted and the unconverted, and not between one 


NOTES. 61 


class of believers and another class. 2. If ‘the perfect’ here means advanced 
Christians as distinguished from babes in Christ, then the wisdom which Paul 
preached was not the gospel assuch, but its higher doctrines. But this cannot 
be, because it is the doctrine of the cross, of Christ crucified, which he 
declares to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, And the description 
given in the following part of this chapter of the wisdom here intended refers 
not to the higher doctrines of the gospel, but to the gospel itself. The contrast 
is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not between 
the rudimental and the higher doctrines ofthe gospel. Besides, what are these 
higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the élite of the church? No one 
knows. Some say one thing, and some another. But there are no higher doc- 
trines than those taught in this Epistle, and in those to the Romans and Ephe- 
sians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no 
distinction between (ziorv¢ and yvdo.c) higher and lower doctrines. It does 
indeed speak of a distinction between milk and strong meat, but that is a dis- 
tinction, not between ‘kinds of doctrine, but between one mode of instruction 
and another. In catechisms designed for children the church pours out all the 
treasures of her knowledge, but in the form of milk, 7.e. in a form adapted to 
the weakest capacities. For all these reasons we conclude that by ‘the per- 
fect’ the Apostle means the competent, the people of God as distinguished 
from the men of the world ; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the 
simple gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom 
of men.”’ 


(fF) No confusion of memory. Ver. 9. 


It is impossible to accept the author’s hypothesis of a failure or ‘‘ confusion 
of memory’’ in the Apostle. If inspiration has any meaning at all, it must be 
supposed sufficient to guard its subjects from such imperfections. Nor is the 
hypothesis at all necessary, although it is adopted by Weiss (Bib. Theol. I. 383). 
It is quite easy to suppose that the Apostle used scriptural language without 
intending to give the sense of the original. This is a very common habit 
among all believers, and that. Paul shared in it is evident from Romans x. 18, 
where he undeniably takes the words of the nineteenth Psalm simply to 
express the wide diffusion of the gospel, without any reference to their purport 
as originally given. Of course in this view we must suppose the phrase As it is 
written not tobe a form of quotation, but rather equivalent to our purpose when 
we say, ‘‘To use the language of Scripture.” Or, if this solution be not accept- 
able, there is another to fall back upon, viz., that which regards the Apostle as 
not intending to quote any one passage of Holy Writ, but rather appealing to 
its authority in general to confirm his position that God surpasses His people’s 
expectations, that He does for them things unheard of before, such indeed as 
could be known only by revelation. That these things are abundantly taught 
in the Old Testament requires no argument. 


(c) ovykpivovtes. Ver. 13. 


The author’s objection to the view which renders this important and much- 
contested word as explaining does not seem to be valid. In all the places 
in which the verb in the active voice occurs in the LXX. it means, with 
a single exception, to interpret or explain. (It never occurs in the sense of con- 


cr 


62 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


nect.) And the fact that it is applied to the interpretation of dreams presents 
no difficulty, for in any case the Apostle would‘have become familiar with its 


useinthissense. Thesense toois every way appropriate, ‘‘ explaining spiritual 


things in spiritual words’’ (substantially what Meyer gives, although he reaches 
it in a different way), and forms a suitable pendant to what precedes. The 
Apostle had spoken sufficiently of the things of the spirit : here he touches upon 
the suitable words for conveying them. The passage is one of great importance, 
as showing the value of a biblical phraseology. The wording of Holy Writ is 
not accidental or capricious, but divinely ordered, and ‘it is in all cases to be 
adhered to. A needless change of expression not infrequently makes the life 
and efficacy of the things to vanish. Nor is it a valid objection to this view 
that it makes inspiration mechanical, for, as Dr. Hodge well asks, ‘‘ If God can 
control the thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he 
contro] his language? Why may he not render each writer, polished or rude, 
infallible in the use of his characteristic style?’ That He does exercise such 
control assures us that in Scripture we have not only divine truth, but that 
truth communicated in a form free from the discoloring and distorting in- 
fluence of human imperfection. 


CHAP ITT, 63 


O15 OG cel OO a 


Ver. 1. kat 2y4] ABC DEFG 8, min. Clem. Or. Chrys. Damasc. read kayo, 
which Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riickert, Tisch. have adopted, and justly, con- 
sidering the decisive testimony in its favour. —capx«ixoic] Griesb. Lachm. 
Rickert, Tisch. read oapkivoig with A B C* D* 8&8, 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To 
be preferred on like grounds as in Rom, vii. 14. Here the interchange was es- 
pecially aided by ver. 3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence, 
capxix. is the true reading ; for the fact that D* F G, Or, Nyss. have odpxvv in 
ver. 3 also, is simply to be set down as the result of mechanical repetition from 
ver. 1, the difference in the sense not being recognized.! — Ver. 2. ovdé] Elz. has 
ovte, in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is neces- 
sary here (Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157), but had oie very often substituted for it 
by the transcribers. —ér:] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how 
easily it might fall aside after oidé through similarity in sound, or on the 
ground that it might be dispensed with when viv followed ! — Ver. 3. kai diyoo- 
tacia| omitted in A B C &, some min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by 
Lachm. Riickert, and Tisch. Were it genuine, why should it have been left 
out? An addition by way of gloss (even in texts used by Irenaeus and Cyprian) 
from Gal. v. 20.— Ver. 4. dvOpwro1] adopted also by Lachm. Rickert, and 
Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss. 
and Fathers. The Recepta capxixoi, although still defended by Fritzsche and 
Reiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials 
they have only L and 8**), that it must be regarded as derived from ver. 3. 
Ovyi, too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, oi« isto be re- 
stored, with Lachm. Rickert, and Tisch., in accordance with A BC 8%, 17, 
Dam. — Ver. 5. ric] Lachm. and Riickert read r/, with A B 8, min. Vulg. It. 
Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the 
masculine to transcribers.—The order IlatAoc ... ’AroAddc (in Elz. and 
Scholz) arose from ver. 4 ; compare i. 12.—Before d:dxovo1, Elz. and Tisch. have 
ah 7, which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must 
be regarded as an addition to denote the sense: nil nisi. — Ver, 12. rovrov] is 


1 Fritzsche, indeed (ad Rom. II. p. 46, and 
de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 49), holds that 
the form ocdpxcvos in this passage, Rom. vii. 
14, and Heb. vii. 16, is an offspring of the 
transcribers. But it was precisely the other 
form gapxixds, so well known and familiar 
to them, which thrust itself upon the copy- 
ists for involuntary or even deliberate 
adoption. Reiche, inhis Comment. crit. I. p. 
138, has made the most elaborate defence of 
the Zecepta, and attempted to weaken the 
force of the evidence on the other side. 
See the same author, too, on Heb. vii. 16. 
The most decisive argument from the exter- 


nal evidence against the Recepta is, that pre- 
cisely the weightiest Codices A BC, are 
equally unanimous in reading odpxwos in 
ver. 1. and gapxixoi in ver. 3; and we cannot 
at all see why the hand of an emendator 
should haveinserted the more classical word 
only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic 
capxixoi in ver. 8. Besides, we have capkivats 
in 2 Cor. iii. 3, entirely without any various 
reading capxixats, from which we may con- 
clude that the distinction in meaning be- 
tween the two words was well, known to 
the transcribers. 


64 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


wanting in A B C* &*, Sahid. Ambr. Deleted by Lachm. and Rickert. The 
omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by 
the fact that the word could be dispensed with. — Ver. 13.70 rip] Lachm. Riick- 
ert,and Tisch. read 70 zip air6, with A B C, min. Sahid. and several Fathers. 
Rightly ; the ai7é not being in any way essential was easily disregarded. — 
Ver. 17. rodrov] Lachm. and Riickert have avréy, which Griesb. too recom- 
mended, with AD EF G, min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (on the margin) 
Vulg. and It. (illum), and Latin Fathers. But, after ci ti¢ in the protasis, airov 
offered itself in the apodosis as the more common. — Ver. 22. éoriv] has pre- 
ponderant evidence against it. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. 
Rickert, and Tisch. A repetition from ver. 21. 


Vy. 1-4. Application of the foregoing section (ii. 6-16) to the Apostle’s rela- 
tion to the Corinthians. 

Ver. 1. Kayo] I also. This also of comparison has its inner ground in 
the reproach alluded to, that he ought to have taught in a higher strain, 
and so ought to have delivered to the Corinthians that Ocov cogiay spoken of 
in ver. 6 f. Hven as no other could have done this, so I also could not. There 
is no reason, therefore, for holding, with de Wette (comp. Billroth), that 
kai buiv Would have been a more stringent way of putting it. — 422’ a¢ cap- 
kivotc] namely, had I to speak to you. See Kiihner, II. p. 604. Kriiger on 
Thue. i. 142. 4, and on Xen. Anad. vii. 2. 28. This brevity of expression 
is zeugmatic. Xdpxevoc (see the critical remarks) is : fleshy (2 Cor. iii. 3), 
not equivalent to capxidc, fleshly. See on Rom. vii. 14. Winer, p. 93 
[E. T. 122], and Fritzsche, ad fom. Il. p. 46. Here, as in Rom. /.c. and 
Heb. vil. 16 (see Delitzsch in loc.), the expression is specially chosen in order 
to denote more strongly the unspiritual nature : as to jleshy persons, as to 
those who have as yet experienced so little of the influence of the Holy 
Spirit, that the capé—i.e. the nature of the natural man, which is opposed 





since the fall to the Spirit of God, and which, as the seat of the sin-princi- 


ple and of lust, gives rise to the incapacity to recognize the sway of the 
Divine Spirit (comp. ii. 14) and to follow the drawing of the voic towards 
the divine will (Rom. vii. 18, 25), by virtue of the Divine Spirit (see on 
Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, viii. 5 ff.)—seemed to make up their whole 
being. They were still in’ too great a measure only ‘‘flesh born of the 
flesh” (John iii. 6), and still lay too much, especially in an intellectual re- 
lation, under the dcGeveia ti¢ capkéc (Rom. vi. 19), although they might also 
be in part ¢vovobtuevoe bxd Tov vode THe capKd¢ avtdv (Col. 1. 18),—so that 
Paul, in order strongly to express their condition at that time, could call 
them fleshy. By cdpxivoc, therefore, he indicates the wnspiritual nature of 
the Corinthians,—7.¢. a nature ruled by the limitations and impulses of the 


oépé, not yet changed by the Holy Spirit,—the nature which they still had’ 


when at the stage of their first novitiate in the Christian life. At a later date 
(see ver. 8) they appear as still at least capxcxoi (guiding themselves according 
to the odp£, and disobedient to the rvedua); for although, in connection with 
continued Christian instruction, they had become more effectually partakers 
also of the influence of the Divine Spirit, nevertheless,—as their sectarian 


ot ta rotge do ee) 65 


tendencies (see ver. 3) gave proof,—they had not so followed this divine 
principle as to prevent the sensuous nature opposed to it (the odpé) from 
getting the upper hand with them in a moral and intellectual respect, so 
that they were consequently still card cadpxa and éy capxi (Rom. viii. 5, 8), 
Ta THE capKds dpovovvTec (Rom. Vill. 5), Kata odpKa Kavydpuevos (2 Cor. xi. 18), 
év codia capxixh (2 Cor. i. 12), etc. It is therefore with true and delicate 
acumen that Paul uses in ver. 1 and ver. 3 these two different expressions 
each in its proper place, wpbraiding his readers, not indeed by the former, 
but certainly by the latter, with their unspiritual condition.’ The ethical 
notions conveyed by the two terms are not the same, but of the same kind ; 
hence érc in ver. 3 is logically correct (against the objection of de Wette 
and Reiche). 

The difference between oapxixéc (also cdpxivoc) and wWuyxde is simply this: 
wuxixdc is one Who has not the Holy Spirit, and stands wholly outside of 
the sphere of His influence ; whether it be that he has never yet received 
Him and is therefore still in the natural state without Christ (homo naturalis, 
as in ii. 14), or that he has been forsaken again by the Spirit (as in Jude 19). 
Lapxixdc, on the other hand, may be affirmed not merely of the yWuyxdc, who 
is indeed necessarily capkixédc, but also (comp. Hofmann) of one who has, it 
is true, received the Holy Spirit and experiences His influence, but is not 
led by His enlightening and sanctifying efficacy in such a measure as to 
have overcome the power of sin (Gal. v. 17) which dwells in the odpé and 
sets itself against the Spirit ; but, on the contrary, instead of being zvev- 
patixéc and, in consequence, living év rvetuare and being disposed xara rvev- 
ua, he is still éy capxi, and still thinks, judges, is minded and acts kara 
capxa.? The wyxde is accordingly as such also capxixéc, but every capxixde 
is not as such still or once more a yvyixdc, not yet having the Spirit, or 
having lost Him again. The expositors commonly do not enter upon any 
distinction between ocdpxivoc and capxixdc, either (so the majority) reading 
capkixoic in ver. 1 also, or (Riickert, Pott) arbitrarily giving out that the 
two words are alike in meaning. The distinction between them and wuyixd¢ 
also is passed over in utter silence by many (such as Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Billroth), while others, in an arbitrary way, make cdpxivoc and capxix. some- 
times to be milder than yvyxd¢ (Bengel, Riickert, holding that in capx. there 
is more of the weakness, in yy. more of the opposition to what is higher), 
sometimes to be stronger (Osiander ; while Theophylact holds the former to 
be zapa dbo, the latter card gow, and the pneumatic izép gicry), or some- 
times, lastly, refer the latter to the lower intelligence, and the former to the 


1 According to Hofmann,—who, for the 
rest, defines the two notions with substan- 
tial correctness,—the distinction between 
gapxivos and capxixkds answers to that be- 
tween elvac év gapxi. and xara oapxa, Rom. 
viii. 5,8. But the latter two phrases differ 
from each other, not in their real meaning, 
but only in the form of representation.— 
Holsten, too, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 397 f., 
has in substance hit the true distinction 


between odpxivos and capkcikos. 

2 Ewald says truly, that the strict distinc- 
tion between spiritual and fleshly came in 
first with Christianity itself. But so, too, the 
sharply-defined notion of the wuxixds could 
only be brought out by the contrast of 
Christianity, because it is the opposite of 
the mvevuarikos, and cannot therefore oc- 
cupy a middle place between the two for- 
mer notions. 


C6 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


lower moral condition as given up to the desires (Locke, Wolf, and others). 
— &¢ vyriow év XpiorG| statement justifying the foregoing o¢ capx. by setting 
forth the character of their Christian condition as it had been at that time 
to which otk jdvuvAbyv x.7.2. looks back. The phrase denotes those who, in 
their relation to Christ (in Christianity), are still children under age, 7.e. 
mere beginners. The opposite is réAewe év X., Col. 1. 28. See, regarding 
the analogous use in Rabbinical writers of Mp] (sugentes), Schoettgen 
in loc. ; Wetstein on 1 Pet. ii. 2; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 162 ; and for that of 
D3), Wetstein on Matt. x. 42. Before baptism a man is yet without con- 


nection with Christ, but through baptism he enters into this fellowship, and 
is now, in the first instance, a virioc év XpiorG, i.e. an infans as yet in re- 
lation to Christianity, who as such receives the elementary instruction suit- 
able for him (the yada of ver. 2). The evayyeaifecfar, on the other hand, 
which leads on to bapiism, is preparatory, giving rise to faith, and forming 
the medium through which their calling takes place ; and accordingly it 
_has not yet to do with vari év Xpiord. The inference is a mistaken one, 
therefore (on the part of Riickert), that Paul has in mind here a second resi- 
dence in Corinth not recorded in the Acts. His readers could not under- 
stand this passage, any more than ii. 1, otherwise than of the apostle’s jirst 
arrival, of the time, consequently, in which he founded the Corinthian 
church, when he instructed those who gave ear to his evayyeAifecfar in the 
elements of Christianity. — By év Xpor@ is expressed the specific field to 
which the notion of vymidty¢ is confined ; viewed apart from Christ, he, who 
as a new convert is yet a vAroc, may be an adult, or anold man. Comp. on 
Col. i. 28. 

Ver. 2. Keeping to the same figure (comp. Heb. v. 12 ; Philo, de agric. 
p. 301), he designates as yaaa: ryv eloaywytKyy Kai atAovorépav Tov ebayyediov 
didacxariav (Basil. Hom. I. p. 4038, ed. Paris, 1638), see Heb. v. 12, vi. 1 f., 
and as Bpeua : the further and higher instruction, the cogia, which, as dis- 
tinguished from the yvaow rv éx Katnygoewe (Clemens Alexandrinus), is 
taught among the réAeo Gi. 6 ff.). Comp. Suicer, Thes. I. p. 721, 717. 
Wetstein in loc.'— édivacde] Ye were not yet strong and vigorous. What 
weakness is meant, the context shows : in the figure, that of the body ; in 
its application, that of the mind and spirit. Comp. regarding this absolute 
use of divaua, dvvatéc x.7.A. (Which makes any supplementing of it by éoOiew 
Bpoua and the like quite superfluous), Dem. 484, 25, 1187, 8 ; Aesch. p. 40. 
39 ; Plato, Men. p. 77 B, Prot. p. 8326 C ; Xen. Anabd. iv. 5. 11, vii. 6. 37; 
1 Macc. v. 41 ; Schaefer, ad Bos. Hil. p. 267 f€. —aav obdé Ere viv dbv.] aan 
obdé, yea, not even. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157. Herm. ad Eurip. Suppl. 
121, Add. 975. That Paul, notwithstanding this remark, does give a sec- 
tion of the higher wisdom in chap. xv., is to be explained from the apolo- 
getic aim of that chapter (xv. 12), which did not allow him to treat the sub- 
ject in an elementary style. There is no self-contradiction here, but’an ex- 
ception demanded by the circumstances. For the profound development 

1 As regards the zeugma (comp. Homer, Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]; Kiihner, ad Xen. 


Il. viii. 546; Odyssey, xx. 312; Hesiod. Theog. Anabd. iv. 5. 8; also Niigelsbach on the Jziad, 
640), see Bremi, ad Lys, Exc. III. p. 487 f.; p. 179, ed. 3. : 


CHAYP. ‘T4T. 1.4. 67 


of the doctrine of the resurrection in chap. xv. belonged really to the Bpdxa 
(comp. ii. 9), and rises high above that elementary teaching concerning the 
resurrection, with which every Jew was acquainted, and which Paul himself 
so often gave without thereby speaking év reAsiow, whence also it is rightly 
placed in Heb. vi. 1 among the first rudiments of Christian doctrine. 

— Ver. 3. Sapxixoi] see on ver. 1. —bérov] equivalent seemingly to quando- 
quidem (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. 431) ; but the conditioning state of things 
is locally conceived. Comp. Heb. ix. 16, x. 18 ; 4 Macc. ii. 14, vi. 34, xiv. 
11; Plato, Tim. p. 86 E; the passages from Xenophon cited by Sturz. 
III. p. 307 ; Herod. i. 68 ; Thue. viii. 27, 2, vili. 96. 1 ; Isocrates, Paneg. 
186. — ¢jd0c] Jealousy. — kata dv6p.| after the fashion of men. Comp. on 
Rom. iii. 5; often, too, in classical writers, e.g. car’ dvp. dpoveiv (Soph. Aj. 
747, 764). The contrast here is to the mode of life conformed to the Divine 
Spirit ; hence not different from xara cépxa in Rom. viii. 4. — Respecting 
the relation to each other of the three words ¢71., ép., duyoor., see Theophy- 
lact : matyp yap 6 CHAdoc tHe Eptdoc, aity Jé& Tac JStyooraciag yevva. — On oiyi, 
comp. Bengel : ‘‘nam Spiritus non fert studium partium humanarum.” On 
the contrary, C#A0¢ x.t.A. are ranked expressly among the épya rye capkéc, 
Gal. v. 20. 

Ver. 4. Tap] explanatory by exhibiting the state of contention in concreto. 
— av$p.| with a pregnant emphasis : are ye not men? 7.e. according to the 
context : are ye not persons, who are absorbed in the unspiritual natural 
ways of men-—in whose thoughts and strivings the divine element of life is 
awanting ? Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 26.: dvOpurd¢ eis (I am a weak, fal- 
lible man). What determines the shade of meaning in such cases is not 
anything in the word itself, but the connection. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 2. 
The specific reference here has its basis in the preceding kara dO pwrov rep:- 
mateite, hence there is no ground for rejecting the reading dv6pwra, with 
Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 48), as a lectio insulsa (comp. also 
Reiche), or for misinterpreting it, with Hofmann, into ‘‘ that they are surely 
men at all events and nothing less.” This latter rendering brings in the idea, 
quite foreign to this passage, of the dignity of man, and that in such a way as 
if the interrogative apodosis were adversative (aA2 ov« or ov uévtor). —It may 
be added that Paul names only the two parties: éyo . . . Ilataov and éya 
’"AroAAO, not giving an imperfect enumeration for the sake of the peracynua- 
tiou6¢ Which follows (iv. 6—so, arbitrarily, de Wette and others), but be- 
cause in this section of the Epistle he has to do just with the antagonism of 
the Apollos-party to himself and to those who, against his will, called them- 
selves after him ; hence also he makes the peraoynuatioudc, in iv. 6, with 
reference to himself and Apollos alone. —éy pév] This wév does not stand 
in a logical relation to the following dé. An inexactitude arising from the 
lively way in which thought follows thought, just as in classical writers too, 
from a like reason, there is often a want of exactly adjusted correspondence 
between wév and dé (Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. i. 9 ; Baeumlein, Partih. 
p- 168 f.). | 

Vv. 5-15. Discussion of the position occupied by the two teachers : 
The two have no independent merit whatsoever (vv. 5-7 ; each will receive his 


68 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


reward according to his own work (vv. 8, 9) ; and, more especially, a definitive — 
recompense in the future, according to the quality of his work, awaits the teacher 
who carries on the building upon the foundation already laid (vv. 10-15). The 
aim of this discussion is stated in iv. 6. 

Ver. 5. Oiv| Now, igitur, introduces the question as an inference from the 
state of party-division just referred to, so that the latter is seen to be 
he presupposition on which the question proceeds. See Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 719: ‘*Such being the state of things, I am forced to propound the 
question,” etc. Riickert thinks that Paul makes his readers ask : But now, 
if Paul and Apollos are not our heads, what are they then? Paul, however, 
is in the habit of indicating counter-questions expressly as such (xy. 35 ; 
Rom. ix. 19, al.).—ri] more significant than tic; comp. ver. 7. The 
question is, what, as respects their position, are they? Comp. Plato, Rep. 
p. 832 E, 341 D.— d:dkovo.] They are servants, and therefore not fitted 
and destined to be heads of parties ; GAdoc éorly 6 deorérnc, jueic éxeivov 
dovaot, Theodoret. —d’ dv] ‘Sper quos, non im quos,” Bengel. Comp. 
John i, 7%. They are but causae ministeriales in the hand of God. — 
éxcotevo.| as in xv. 2,11; Rom. xii. 11.’—x«ai] and that. kai... &dwxev is 
not to be joined with ver. 6 (Mosheim, Markland, ad Lys. XII. p. 560 f.), 
seeing that in ver. 7 no regard is paid to this cal... édwxev. — éxdotw oc | 
the emphasis is on éxdor., as in vii. 17 and Rom. xii. 3. —6 Képuoc] correla- 
tive to the didkovor, is here God, not Christ (Theophylact ; also Riickert, 
who appeals to Eph. iv. 7, 11), as what follows—in particular vv. 9, 10— 
proves. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4. — As respects the av’ 7 of the Textus receptus : 
nist (which makes the question continue to the end of the verse ; comp. 
Ecclus, xxii. 12) see on Luke xii. 51 ; 2 Cor. i. 13. 

Vv. 6, 7. Statement of the difference in the draxovia of the two, and 
of the success of the ministry of both as dependent upon God, so that no 
one at all had any independent standing, but only God. Therewith Paul 
proceeds to point out the impropriety of the party-relation which men 
had taken up towards the two teachers. — égbrevoa x.t.A.] We are not to 
suppose the object left indefinite (de Wette) ; on the contrary, it emerges 
out of 6? dv éntoreboate, ver. 5, namely : the faith of the Corinthian com- 
munity. This is conceived of as a tree (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 E) 
which was planted by Paul, inasmuch as he first brought the Corinthians to 
believe and founded the church ; but watered? by Apollos, inasmuch as 

_he had subsequently exerted himself in the way of confirming and devel- 
oping the faith of the church, and for the increase of its numbers ; and 
lastly, blessed with growth by God, inasmuch as it was under His influence 
The yap avtovd ydpito¢ Td KaTépOwua, Theodoret) that the work of both had suc- 
cess and prospered. This making it to grow is the effect of grace, without 
which the ‘‘ granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli,” Bengel. 


1 Ye have become believers, which is to be development. Comp. John ii. 11, xi. 15. 
understood here in a relative sense, both as 2 Augustine, Hp. 48, and several of the 
respected the beginning and the further- Fathers make érorcev refer in a totally in- 
ance of faith. See ver.6. The becoming appropriate way to baptism. 

a believer comprehends different stages of 


CHAP. I1I., 8-10. 69 


Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xiv. 27; 1 Cor. xv. 10. —éori 7] may be taken to 
mean : is anything of importance, anything worth speaking of (Acts v. 86 ; Gal. 
ii. 6, vi. 8. Plato. Phaedr. p. 242 E, Gorg. p. 472 A, Symp. p. 173 B ; Xen. 
Mem. ii. 1. 12). It is more in accordance, however, with the decided tone 
of hostility to all human estimation which marks the whole context to take 
Te in quite a general sense (comp. x. 19), so that of both in and by them- 
selves (in comparison with God) it is said : they are nothing. — aan’ 6 ais. 
@ed¢] sc. Ta wavta éore (1 Cor. xv. 28; Col. ili. 11), which, according to the 
apostle’s intention, is to be drawn from what has been already said. An 
abbreviated form of the contrast, with which comp. vii. 19, and see 
generally Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 366 D, 561 B. Theo- 
phylact says well : diddéac, brs Of G dei wbvw TpocéxeLy, Kai Eig avTOY avaTtibévat 
TavTa Ta ovuBaivovta ayaba. 

Vv. 8, 9. The planter, on the other hand, and the waterer are one: each of 
them, however (and here we pass on to the new point of the recompense of the 
teachers), will receive his own reward, etc. — év eiow] the one is not some- 
thing different from the other, that is to say generically, as respects the rela- 
tion.defined (xi. 5 ; John x. 30, xvii. 11, 21) here : in so far both have one 
and the same official character, namely, as workers in the service of God. Theo- 
doret : xara tyv brovpyiav.—éxaotog dé k.T.A.] mpd¢ yap Td Tov Oe0d épyov 
mapapahAduevor Ev slow’ érel ré6vwv évexev (i.e. in respect of the pains and 
labour expended) oix eioiv, adda éxaotoce x.7.A., Chrysostom. — id:ov] both 
times with emphasis. Bengel puts it happily : ‘‘ congruens iteratio ; anti- 
theton ad unum.” The Ajwpera, however, refers to the recompense at the 
last judgment, ver. 13 ff. — Ver. 9 gives now the proof, not for both halves 
of ver. 8, of which the first has been already disposed of in the preceding 
statement (in opposition to Hofmann), but for the new thought éxaoroc . . . 
kérov introduced by dé. The emphasis of proof lies wholly on the word 
thrice put foremost, Ocoi. For since it is God whose helpers we are 
(‘‘ eximium elogium ministerii,” Calvin), God whose tillage-field, God whose 
building ye are: therefore it cannot be otherwise than that that éxaoroc . . . 
kérov must hold good, and none lack his reward according to his labour 
(‘‘ secundum laborem, non propter laborem,” Calovius). — Qcoi ovvepyoi] for 
we, your teachers, labour with God, the supreme Lord and Fosterer of 
the church, at one work, which is simply the furtherance of the church. 
The explanation : workers who work with each other for God’s cause (Estius 
by way of suggestion, Bengel, Flatt, Heydenreich, Olshausen), is linguisti- 
cally erroneous (see 1 Thess, ili. 2; Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21; Phil. ii. 25, iv. °3 ; 
2 Cor. 1. 24 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 5; Plato, Def? p. 414 A; Dem. 68. 27, 884. 2 ; 
Plut. Per. 31 ; Bernhardy, p. 171 ; Kiihner, II. p. 172), and fails to appre- 
ciate that lofty conception of a dotAo¢ Ocod. — Oeod yedpy. and Oeoi oix. set be- 
fore us the Corinthian church, in so far as itis the object of the ministerial 
service of Christian teachers, under the twofold image of a jield for tillage 
(yeopy., Strabo, xiv. p. 671 ; Theag, in Schol. on Pind. Nem. iii. 21 ; Prov. 
xxiv. 30, xxxi. 16), which belongs to God and is cultivated, and as a building 
belonging to God (Eph. ii. 21), which is being carried up to completion. 

Ver. 10. The former of these images (yedpy.) has been the underlying 


10 _ PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

thought in what has hitherto been said (vv. 6-8) ; the second and new 
figure (oixod.) is now retained in what follows up to ver. 15, the course of 
thought being this, that Paul, first of all, states the difference between his 
own work and that of others at this building, and then passes on to the 
responsibility which he who would build after him takes upon himself. — 
The ydpic is not the apostolic office, with which Paul was graced (Rom. xii. 
8, xv. 153; Gal. i. 15, a/.), for it was not exclusively an apostle who was 
required for the founder of a church (Rome, Colossae), but the special endow- 
ment of grace, which he had received from God to fit him for his calling ; and 
he wasconscious in himself that he was qualified and destined just for the 
right laying of the foundation, Rom. xv. 20. — The significant weight of the 
words xatd . . . dof. wor is to express humility in making the utterance which 
follows. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. — d¢ cogd¢ apyit. | proceeding 
as such an one would, going to work in this capacity. To it belongs the 
right laying of the foundation in strict accordance with the design of the build- 
ing, the reverse of which would be the part of an wnskilful architect. 
Without a foundation no man builds ; without a proper foundation no codéc, 
i.e. no one who understands the art (Ex. xxxv. 10). Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 
17 C, de virt. b.°3876 A ; Pind. Pyth. iii. 115, v. 115 ; Soph. Ant. 362. But 
Paul by the grace of God was a cogd¢ apyiréxtov. — What he understands by 
such a foundation, he himself tells us in ver. 11, namely, Jesus Christ, 
without whom (both in an objective sense : without whose appearing and 
work, and in a subjective: without appropriating whom in conscious faith ; 
see ver. 11) a Christian society could not come into existence at all. This 
foundation Paul had laid, inasmuch as he had made Christ to be possessed by 
the conscious faith of the Corinthian church. Comp. on Eph. ii. 20. — euérior] 
The masculine 6 deuéAcocg (See ver. 11; hence wrongly held by Ewald to be 
neuter here), attributed by the old grammarians to the xowg (see Wetstein 
on ver. 11), is commonly found only in the plural, and that as early as Thuc. 
i. 93. 1. In the singular, 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Rev. xxi. 19 ; Machon in Athen. 
vill. p. 8346 A ; 3 Esdr. vi. 20. — ddAoc dé éxorxod.] By this is meant not 
merely Apollos, but any later teacher of the Corinthians whatever (comp. 
éxactoc) : ‘‘ Not my task, however, but that of another, is the building up, 
the carrying on the building.” —réc]| t.e. here: with what materials.* See 
vy. 12, 18. Without figurative language : ‘‘ Let each take heed what sort of 
doctrine (as regards substance and form) he applies, in order to advance 
and develop more fully the church, founded upon Jesus Christ, in its saving 
knowledge and frame of life.” See on ver. 12. The figure is not changed, 
as has been often thought (‘‘ Ante fideles dixerat aedificium Dei, nunc 
aedificium vocat ea, quae in ecclesia Christiana a doctoribus docentur,” 
Grotius ; comp. Rosenmiiller) ; but the oixodoug is, as before, the church, 
which, being founded upon Christ (see above), is further built up, z.e. devel- 
oped in the Christian faith and life (which may take place in a right ora 


1 According to de Wette, the force of the by the opponents of the apostle). But the 
mas consists primarily in this, that they sim- carrying on of the building, so far as that 
ply carry on the building, and donot alter is concerned, is presupposed in mas érotko- 
the foundation (which was probably done Sowei, 


CMAP) IIT. 511,12. 71 


wrong way, see vv. 12, 18), by the teachings of the later teachers. In like 
manner is a house built up by the different building-materials upon the 
foundation laid for it. 

Ver. 11. Tap] justifies the foregoing warning, in so far as it is given exclu- 
sively to the upbuilder: for with the layer of the foundation it is quite differ- 
ent, he cannot otherwise than, etc. ; but as regards the upbwilder, the case is, as 
ver. 12 ff. sets forth. We are not to bring in any intermediate thought to 
explain the ydp, either with Billroth: ‘‘each, however, must bethink him- 
self of carrying on the building ;” or, with Hofmann, that in the case of all 
others the question simply concerns a right building up. Rather we are to 
note that ver. 11 stands only in a preparatory relation to ver. 12, in which the 
varying wéc of the érockodoueiv is exhibited. — divarac] can, not may (Grotius, 
Glass, and others, including Storr, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Billroth) ; for it is 
the Christian church that is spoken of, whose structure is incapable of having 
another foundation. — apd tov xeiyevorv| i.e. different from that, which lies 
already there. Respecting rapd after dAAoc in this sense, see Kriiger, ad 
Dion. p. 9; Stallbaum, ad Philed. p. 51; Ast, Lev. Plat. III. p. 28. The 
Joundation already lying there, however, is not that which Paul had laid (so 
most interpreters, resting on ver. 10 ; including de Wette, Neander, Maier, 
Hofmann) ; for his affirmation is universal, and if no one can lay another 
foundation than that which lies already there, Paul, of course, could not do 
so either, and therefore the xeiuevoc must have been in its place before the 
apostle himself laid his foundation. Hence the keiwevoc Oeuédsoc is that laid 
_ by God (so, rightly, Riickert and Olshausen), namely, Jesus Christ Himself, 
the fundamentum essentiale, He whom God sent, delivered up to death, raised 
again, and exalted, thereby making Him to be for us wisdom, righteousness, 
etc. (i. 30), or, according to a kindred figure, the corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20 ; 
Matteaxie42 > Acts iv. 10 f.; 1 Pet. i. 6). Comp. 1 Tim. 11. 16. Thisis 
the objective foundation, which lies there for the whole of Christendom. But 
this foundation 7s laid (ver. 10) by the founder of a church, inasmuch as he 
makes Christ to be appropriated by believers, to be the contents of their con- 
scious faith, and thereby establishes them in the character of a Christian ’ 
church ; that is the doctrinal laying of the foundation (fundamentum dog- 
maticum). — Observe further, that Paul says purposely ’Iycot¢ Xpioréc, so as 
emphatically to designate the personal, historically manifested Christ. This 
bc éotiv "Incov¢ Xpsotdéc is the sum of the fundamental Christian confession of 
faith, John xvii. 3; Phil. i. 11; Acts iv. 10 ff. 

Ver. 12. Aé] continues the subject by contrasting the position of him who 
builds up with that of him who lays the foundation (ver. 11). It is a mis- 
take, therefore, to put ver. 11 in parenthesis (Pott, Heydenreich, comp. 
Billroth). —In connection with this carrying on of the figure, it is to be 
noted—(1) that Paul is not speaking of several buildings,! as though the 
Oewédvog Were that not of a house, but of a city (Billroth) ; against which 
ver. 16 (see in loc.) is decisive, as is, further, the consideration that the idea 
of Christ’s being the foundation of a city of God is foreign to the N. T.- (2) 


1 So also Wetstein: ‘‘ Duo sunt aedificia, domus regia et casa rustici quae distinguuntur.”’ 


72 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. . 

The figure must not be drawn out beyond what the words convey (as Gro- 
tius, e.g., does : ‘‘ Proponit ergo nobis domum, cujus parietes sint ex mar- 
more, columnae partim ex auro partim ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastig- 
jum vero ex stramine et culmo”). It sets before us, on the contrary, a 
building rearing itself upon the foundation laid by the master-builder, for the 
erection of which the different workmen bring their several contributions of 
building materials, from the most precious and lasting down to the most mean 
and worthless. 'The various specimens of building materials, set side by side 
in vivid asyndeton (Kriiger and Kitihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 28 ; Winer, p. — 
484 [E. T. 653]), denote the various matters of doctrine propounded by teach- 
ers and brought into connection with faith in Christ, in order to develop 
and complete the Christian training of the church.’ These are either, like 
gold, silver, and costly stones (marble and the like), of high value and im- 
perishable duration, or else, like timber, hay, stubble (kaAduy, not equiva- 
lent to cdAauoc, areed ; see Wetstein and Schleusner, Thes.), of little worth 
and perishable,*? so that they—instead of, like the former, abiding at the 
Parousia in their eternal truth—come to nought, 7.e. are shown not to belong 
to the ever-enduring aA/Oeva, and form no part of the perfect knowledge 
(xiii. 12) which shall then emerge.* Two things, however, are to be ob- 
served in connection with this interpretation—(1) that the several materials 
are not meant to point to specific dogmas that could be named, although 
we cannot fail to perceive, generally speaking, the graduated diversity of 
the constituent elements of the two classes ; (2) that the second class em- 
braces in it no absolutely anti-Christian doctrines. To deny the first of 
these positions would but give rise to arbitrary definitions without warrant 
in the text ; to deny the second would run counter to the fact that the 
building was upon the foundation, and to the apostle’s affirmation, airé¢ dé 


cwbgoeta, ver. 15. Billroth makes the strange objection to this interpreta- 


1Luther’s gloss is appropriate : ‘‘ This is 
said of preaching and teaching, by which 
faith is either strengthened or weakened.’’ 

2Compare Midr. Tillin, 119. 51, of false 
teachers: ‘* Sicut foenum non durat, ita nec 
verba eorum stabunt in saeculum.”’ 

3 So, in substance (explaining it of the 
different doctrines), Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, Lyra, Thomas, 
Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, 
Piscator, Justiniani, Grotius, Estius, Calo- 
vius, Lightfoot, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Heydenreich, Neander, de Wette, Osiander, 
Ewald, Maier. Comp. Theodoret: tuvés rept 
Soymatwy TavtTa eipjovat TH atocTOAw haciv, 

4Estius characterizes the second class 
well as ‘‘doctrina minus sincera minusque 
solida, yeluti si sit humanis ac philosophicis 
aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta 
plus satis, si curiosa magis quam utilis,” etc. 
Comp. the Paraphr. of Erasmus, who refers 
specially to the ‘‘ humanas constitutiunculas 
de cultu, de victu, de frigidis ceremoniis.” 
They are, generally, all doctrinal develop- 


ments, speculations, ete., which, although 
built into the fabric of doctrine in time, 
will not approve themselves at the final 
consummation on the day of the Lord, nor 
be taken in as elements in the perfect 
knowledge, but will then—instead of stand- 
ing out under the test of that great catas- 
trophe which shall end the history of all 
things, like the doctrines compared to gold, 
etc.—be shown to be no part of divine and 
saving truth, and so will fall away. Such 
materials, in greater or less degree, every 
Church will find in the system of doctrine 
built up for it by human hands. To learn 
more and more to recognize these, and to 
separate them from the rest in accordance 
with Scripture, is the task of that onward 
development, against which no church 
ought to close itself up till the day of the 
final crisis,—least of all the evangelical 
Lutheran church with its central principle 
regarding Scripture, a principle which de- 
termines and regulates its stedfastly Prot- 
estant character. 


CHAP. III.; 12. "3 


tion as a whole, that ypvody «.7.2. cannot apply to the contents of the teach- 
ing, because Paul calls the latter the foundation. But that is in fact Christ, 
and not the further doctrinal teaching. In reply to the invalid objections 
urged by Hollmann (Animadverss. ad cap. iii. et. xiii. Hp. Pauli prim. ad 
Cor., Lips. 1819) see Heydenreich and Riickert.. Our exposition is, in fact, 
a necessity, because it alone keeps the whole figure in harmony with itself 
throughout. For if the fowndation, which is laid, be the contents of the 
Jirst preaching of the gospel, namely, Christ, then the material wherewith 
the building is carried on must be the contents of the further instruction 
given. It is out of keeping, therefore, to explain it, with Origen, Augustine, 
Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Photius, and more recently, 
Billroth, ‘‘of the fruits called forth in the church by the exercise among 
them of the office of teaching” (Billroth), of the morality or immorality of 
the hearers (Theodoret : gold, etc., denotes ra eidy tic aperee 3; Wood, etc., 
Ta évavtia THC apEeTHc, oi¢ nuTpériota THC yeévync TO Tvp); OF, again, of the 
worthy or unworthy members of the church themselves, who would be moulded 
by the teachers (Schott in Réhr’s Magaz. fiir christl. Pred. VII. 1, p. 8 f., 
with Pelagius, Bengel, Hollmann, Pott). So, too, Hofmann in loc., and 
previously in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 124. Both of these interpretations 
have, besides, this further consideration against them, that they do not har- 
monize in meaning with the figure of the watering formerly employed, 
whereas our exposition does. Moreover, if the épyov, which shall be burned 
up (ver. 15), be the relative portion of the church, it would not accord there- 
with that the teacher concerned, who has been the cause of this destruction, 
is, notwithstanding, to obtain salvation ; this would be at variance with the 
N. T. severity against all causing of offence, and with the responsibility of 
the teachers. Riickert gives up the attempt at a definite interpretation, 
contenting himself with the general truth : Upon the manner and way, in 
which the office of teaching is discharged, does it depend whether the teacher shalt 
have reward or loss ; he who builds on in right fashion upon a good foundation 
(? rather : upon the foundation) has reward therefrom ; he who would add what 
1s unsuitable and unenduring, only harm and loss. But by this there is simply 
- nothing explained ; Paul assuredly did not mean anything so vague as this 
by his sharply outlined figure ; he must have had before his mind, wherein 
consisted the right carrying on of the building, and what were additions un- 
‘ suitable and doomed to perish. Olshausen (comp. also Schrader) under- 
stands the passage not of the efficiency of the teachers, but of the (right or 
misdirected) individual activity of sanctification on each part of each believer in 
general. Wrongly so; because, just as in ver. 6 ff. the planter and waterer, 
so here the founder and upbuilder must be teachers, and because the build- 
ing is the church (ver. 9), which is being built (vv. 9, 10). And this concep- 
tion of the church as a building with a personal foundation (Christ), and 
consisting of persons (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4 f.), remains quite 
unimpaired with our exegesis also (against Hofmann’s objection). For the 
further building upon the personal foundation laid, partly with gold, etc., 
partly with wood, etc., is just the labour of teaching, through which the 
development and enlargement of the church, which is made up of persons, 


4. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


receive a character varying in value. The érockodoueiv takes place on the 
persons through doctrines, which are the building materials, 

Ver. 18. Apodosis : So will what each has done on the building (rd épyov) 
not remain hidden (davepiv yevgo.). Then the ground of this assurance is as- 
signed : 7 yap juépa dnddae, 8c. éxdotov Td épyov. The day 18 kar’ éoxhy, the 
day of the Parousia (comp. Heb. x. 24), which is obvious from what follows 
on to ver. 15. So, rightly, Tertullian, contra Mare. iv. 2 ; Origen, Cyprian, 
Ep. iv. 23. Lactantius, Jnst. vii. 21; Hilarius, Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, the Roman Catholics (some of whom, 
however, in the interests of purgatory, make it out to be the day of death), 
Bengel, and others, including Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Schott, Schrader, 
Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann. It is un-Pau- 
line, and also against the context (for wood, etc., does not apply to the 
doctrines of the Judaizers alone), to interpret the phrase, with Hammond, 
Lightfoot, Gusset, Schoettgen, of the destruction of Jerusalem, which should 
reveal the nullity of the Jewish doctrines. The following expositions are 
alien to the succeeding context: of time im general (comp. dies docebit : 
xpdbvo¢g dixacov avdpa deixvvcw pdévoc, Sophocles, Oed. Rex, 608 ; Stob. Hel. I. 
p- 234,—so Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others) ; 
or of the time of clear knowledge of the gospel (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Vors- 
tius’) 5 or of the dies tribulationis (Augustine, Calovius, and others), — 6rz 
év xupt axoxad.] We are neither to read here dre? instead of érz (Bos, Al- 
berti), nor does the latter stand for the former (Pott), but it has a causative 
force : because it is revealed in fire,—the day, namely,* not rd épyov, as Luther 
and the majority of interpreters (among them Heydenreich, Flatt, Schott, 
Neander) hold, following Ambrosiaster and Oecumenius ; for this would 
yield a tautology with what comes next. Bengel, joined by Osiander, im- 
agines as the subject of the verb 6 Ktpzoc, which can be evolved from 7 juépa 
only by a very arbitrary process, since the whole context never speaks of 
Christ Himself. — év rvpi] i.e. encompassed with jire (see Bernhardy, p. 209 ; 
Matthiae, p. 1840), so that fire is the element in which the revelation of 
that day takes place. For Christ, when His Parousia draws nigh, is to ap- 
pear coming from heaven év rupi gaoyé¢ (2 Thess. i. 8 ; comp. Dan. vii. 9, 
10 ; Mal. iv. 1), ¢.e. surrounded by flaming fire (which is not to be ex- 
plained away, as is often done : amid lightnings ; rather comp. Ex. iii. 2 
ff., xix. 18). This fire, however, is not, as Chrysostom would have it, that 
of Gehenna (Matt. vi. 22, 29, a/.); for it is in 7 that Christ appears, and it 
seizes upon every, épyov, even the golden, etc., and proves each, leaving the 
one unharmed, but consuming the other. The correct supplying of 7 juépa 
with aroxad. supersedes at once the older Roman Catholic interpretation about 
purgatory (against which see, besides, Scaliger and Calovius), as the correct 


1 Were this so, the text would need to 2 As regards the fact of the two words 
contain an antithetic designation of the being often put the one for the other by 
present time as night. And in that case, transcribers, see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 
too, it would surely be the clear day of the 491; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. i. 4. 2. 
Parousia which would be meant, as in Rom. 3 Estius, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshau- 
xili. 12. sen, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. 


CHAP, III., 14, 15. | 75 


view of 7 7jzépa sets aside the explanations of the wrath of God against the Jews 
(Lightfoot), of the Holy Spirit, who tries ‘‘ quae doctrina sit instar auri et quae 
instar stipulae” (Calvin), of the fire of trial and persecution (Rosenmiiller, 
Flatt, following Augustine, de civ. Dei, xxi. 26, Erasmus, and many old 
commentators ; comp. Isa. xlvili. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, iv. 12 ; Ecclus. ii. 5), and 
of a progressive process of purifying the mind of the church (Neander). The 
idea rather is: ‘‘ The decision on the day of the Parousia will show how 
each has worked as a teacher ; if any one has taught what is excellent and 
imperishable, that, as belonging to the divine aA/Oeca, will stand this de- 
cision and survive ; if any one has taught what is worthless and perishable, 
that will by the decision of that day cease to have any standing, fall away, 
and come to nought” (comp. on ver. 12). This idea Paul, in accordance 
with his figure of a building, clothes in this form: ‘‘ At the Parousia the 
fire, in which it reveals itself, will seize upon the building ; and then through 
this fiery ordeal those parts of the fabric which are of gold, silver, and 
precious stones will pass unharmed ; but those consisting of wood, hay, 
and stubble will be burnt up.” — aroxaAbrrerac] The result of this act of 
revelation is the dyjdéce: already spoken of. The present marks the event as 
beyond doubt; the sentence is an axiom. —kxal éxdorov x.7.A.] not to be 
connected with ér (Riickert), but with the clause in the future, 7 yap ju. 
dnddce. Is épyov in the nominative (Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many 
others) or accusative (Billroth, Schott, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald)? The 
former is more in harmony with the sense of the passage, for so éz. éore is 
made to appear not as merely inserted, but in its befitting emphasis. For 
the form of the statement advances from the general to the particular : the 
day will show it, namely, what each has wrought ; and (now follows the defi- 
nite specification of the quality) what is the character of the work of each,— 
the fire itself will test. — 7d rip airé] ignis ipse (see the critical remarks), i.e. 
the fire (in which the droxddvuc of the day takes place) by its own proper 
working, without intervention from any other quarter. Respecting the posi- 
tion of airé after rip, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5.1. Were we to 
take it as the object of dokiuwdoe, pointing back.to the preceding statement 
(Hofmann), it would be superfluous in itself, and less in keeping with the 
terse, succinct mode of expression of this whole passage. — doxiudcec] ‘‘ pro- 
babit, non : purgabit. Hic locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet, 
sed plane extinguit,” Bengel. 

Vv. 14, 15. Manner and result of this dox:udoes. — pevet| will remain un- 
harmed ; not péver (Text. recept.) for xataxajcera, in ver. 15, corresponds to 
it. — wiofov Ayp.| namely, for his work at the building (without figure : 
teacher's recompense), from God, at whose oixodouf# he has laboured. Riickert 
holds that Paul steps decidedly out of his figure here ; for the builder is 
not paid only after his work has stood the test of fire uninjured. But the 
building 7s still being worked at until the Parousia, so that before that event 
no recompense canbe given. The fire of the Parousia seizes upon the build- 
ing still in process of being completed, and now he alone receives recompense 
whose work, which has been carried on hitherto, shows itself proof against 
the fire.—As regards the form xartaxajcera, shall be burned down (comp, 


/ 


76 PAUL’S FIRSI EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


2 Pet. iii. 10), instead of the Attic xataxavOjcera, see Thom. M. p. 511. — 

Cyuolpcerat| sc. Tov pucbdy, i.e. frustrabitur praemio. Comp. on ¢nuovcbai 71, 
to suffer loss of anything, Matt. xvi. 26; Luke ix. 25; Phil. iii. 8. See 
also Valckenaer, ad Herod. vii. 89. The thought is : He will, as a punish- 
ment, not receive the recompense which he would otherwise have received 
as a teacher. We are not to think of deposition from office (Grotius), seeing 
that it is the time of the Parousia that isspoken of. To take the fyu., with 
the Vulgate, et al.: without object, so that the sense would be: ‘‘ he shall 
have loss from it’? (Hofmann), gives too indefinite a conception, and one 
which would require first of all to have its meaning defined more precisely 
from the antithesis of yicf. Agweta. —adrioc J& cwbhoeTat, ovTW dé WE did Tupoc] 
In order not to be misunderstood, as if by his ¢yuw6yoeras he were denying 
to such teachers share in the future Messianic salvation at all, whereas he 
is only refusing to assign to them the higher rank of blessedness, blessed- 
ness as teachers, Paul adds: Yet he himself shall be saved, but so as through 
Jire. Aidréc refers to the rdv yio66v, which is to be supplied as the object of | 
Cyu.: although he will lose his recompense, yet he himself, etc. Riickert is 
wrong in thinking that the builder is now regarded as the inhabitant of the 
house. Paul does not handle his figure in this confused way, but has before 
his mind the builder as still busied in the house with the work which he has | 
been carrying on: all at once the fire seizes the house ; he flees and yet 
finds safety, but not otherwise than as a man is saved through and from the 
midst of fire. Such an escape is wont to be coupled with fear and painful 
injury ; hence the idea of this figurative representation is : He himself, how- 
‘ever, shall obtain the Messianic cwrnpia,* yet still only in such a way that the 
catastrophe of the Parousia will be fraught with the highest anxiety for him, and 
will not elapse without sensibly impairing his inheritance of blessing. He shall 
obtain the cwrypia, but only a lower grade of it, so that he will belong to 
those whom Jesus calls ‘‘ the last” (Matt. xx. 16; Mark x. 31). The main 
point in this interpretation, namely, that cwyo. refers to the Messianic 
cwTnpia, 18 accepted by most expositors ; but several, such as Rosenmiiller 
. and Flatt, take the future as indicating the possibility (a view which the 
very fact of the two preceding futures should have sufficed to preclude), 
and Grotius? has foisted in a problematical sense into the word (equally 
against the definitely assertive sense of those futures) : ‘‘In summo erit sa- 
lutis suae periculo, Etsi eam adipiscetur (quod boni ominis causa sperare 
mavult apostoius) non fiet id sine gravi moestitia ac dolore.” It is a common 
mistake to understand &¢ da rupd¢ in the sense of a proverb (by a hair’s- 
breadth, see Grotius and Wetstein in loc. ; Valckenaer, p. 157 ; and comp. 
Amos iv. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2 ; Jude 23), because the passage, looking back to 
ver. 13, really sets before us a conflagration (dc, asin Johni. 14). It may be 


1 For he has after all held to the founda- _—_ grade of blessingin the Messiah’s kingdom, 
tion. The Messianic salvation is the giftof | Comp. Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xix. 28. 
grace to those who believe in Christ as 2 So before him Theodore of Mopsuestia : 
such ; while the teacher’s blessedness, as GAG Kai dv cw SyTar Sta TLVa ETEpaY aiTiay TwCeLVY 
piodds (which the general cwrnpia in and by avtov dvvamevyny, 
itself is not), must be some specially high 


CHAP. III., 16, 17. sa 


added that there is no ground for bringing into the conception the fire of 
the wrath of God (Hofmann), since, according to the text, it is the selfsame 
fire which seizes upon the work of the one and of the other, in the one case 


however, proving it to be abiding, and in the other consuming it. Bengel 
illustrates the matter well by the instance of a shipwrecked man : ‘‘ut mer- 


cator naufragus amissa merce et lucro servatur per undas.” Other commen- 
tators, again (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), understand it to 
mean : LHe shall be preserved, but so only as one is preserved through the fire of 
hell, that is to say, eternally tormented therein. So too of late, in substance, 
Maier. But the interpretation is decidedly erroneous ; first, because, ac- 
cording to ver. 13, zip cannot be allowed to have any referenee to the fire 
of hell ; secondly, because céfecfa, which is the standing expression for 
_ being saved with the salvation of the Messiah, can least of all be used to 
denote anything else in a picture representing the decision of the Parousia.* 
This last consideration tells also against Schott’s explanation (d.c. p. 17): 
“* He himself shall indeed not be utterly destroyed on that account ; he remains, 
but it is as one who has passed through flaming jire (seriously injured),” by 
which is denoted the divine award of punishment which awaits such a 
teacher at the day of judgment. It may also be urged against the view in 
question, that the sentence of punishment, since it dooms to the fire, cannot 
be depicted in the figure as a having passed through the fire. () 

Vv. 16-23. Warning address to the readers, comprising—(1) preparatory 
statement reminding them of the guilt of sectarian conduct as a destroying 
of the temple of God, vv. 16, 17,—verses which Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
and others quite mistakenly refer to the incestuous person ; then (2) exhor- 
tation to put a stop to this conduct at its source by renouncing their fancied 
wisdom, vv. 18-28, and to give up what formed the most prominent feature 
of their sectarianism,—the parading of human authorities, which was, 
in truth, utterly opposed to the Christian standpoint. 

Vv. 16, 17. Ov« oidate bre x.7.2.] could be regarded as said in proof 
of ver. 15 (Billroth), only if Chrysostom’s interpretation of cwlyoeru . . . 
mupoc, or Schott’s modification of it (see on ver. 15), were correct.* Since 
this, however, is not the case, and since the notion of owifoera, although 
limited by otrw dé dc dud rupdc, cannot for a moment be even relatively included 
under the @6epei rovrov 6 Oedc of ver. 17, because the ¢opa is the very opposite 
of the cwrypia (Gal. vi. 8), this mode of bringing out the connection must be 
given up. Were we to assume with other expositors that Paul passes on here 
from the teachers who build upon the foundation to such as are anti- 
Christian, ‘‘ qui fundamentum evertunt et aedificium destruunt,” * we should 
in that case feel the want at once of some express indication of the destroy- 
ing of the fowndation,—which, for that matter, did not take place in 


1 Hence, also, it will not do torefer airés, 
with Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 144 f., to the depe- 
Atos, Which will remain safe, but covered 
over with refuse, ashes, and the like, which 
_he holds to be indicated by ws dca mupds. 

2 This holds, too, against Ewald’s way of 
apprehending the connection here: Are 


any surprised that the lot of such a teacher 
should be so hard aone! Let them con- 
sider how sacred is the field in which he 
works. 

3 Estius and others, including Michaelis, 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Hofmann. 


"38 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Corinth,—and also, and more especially, of some indication of the relation 
of antithesis subsisting between this passage and what has gone be- 
fore. The apostle would have needed at least, in order to be understood, to 
have proceeded immediateiy after ver. 15 somewhat in this way: ei dé 
tic GOeiper K.T.2. No 3 in ver. 16 we have a new part of the argument begun ; 
and it comes in all the more powerfully without link of connection with the 
foregoing. Hitherto, that is to say, Paul has been presenting to his readers 
—that he may make them see the wrong character of their proud partisan- 
conduct (iv. 6)—the relation of the teachers to the church as an oixodopu7 
Ocov. But he has not yet set before their minds what sort of an oixod. Oeov 
they are, namely, the temple of God (hence vadéc is emphatic). This he does 
now, in order to make them feel yet more deeply the criminality of 
their sectarian arrogance, when, after ending the foregoing discussion about 
the teachers, he starts afresh : Is it unknown to you’ what is the nature of this 
building of God, that ye are God’s temple? etc. The question is one of 
amazement (for the state of division among the Corinthians seemed to imply 
such ignorance, comp. v. 6, vi. 15 f., ix. 18, 24) ; and it contains, along 
with the next closely connected verse, the sudden, startling preface—arrest- 
ing the mind of the readers with its holy solemnity—to the exhortation 
which is to follow, ver. 18 ff. —vadc Oecd] not : a temple of God, but the 
temple of God.? For Paul’s thought is not (as Theodoret and others 
hold) that there are several temples of God (which would be quite alien to 
the time-hallowed idea of the one national temple, which the apostle 
must have had, see Philo, de monarch. 2, p. 634), but that each Christian 
community is in a spiritual way, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah, the 
realized idea of that temple, its aAyOw6v. There are not, therefore, several 
temples, but several churches, each one of which is the same true spiritual 
temple of God. Comp. Eph. ii. 21 ; Ignatius, ad Hph. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; 
Barnab. 4 ; also regarding Christian persons individually, as in vi. 19, see 
Ignatius, ad Phil. 7. This accordingly is different from the heathen 
conception of pious men being temples (in the plural). Valer. Max. iv. 7. 1, 
al., in Elsner and Wetstein. — cai 7d rvedvua] appendsin how far (kai being 
the explicative and) they are vad¢c Oeot. God, as He dwelt in the actual 
temple by the NYS (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2394), dwells in the ideal 
temple of the Christian church by the gracious presence, working and ruling 
in it, of His Spirit, in whom God communicates Himself; for the Spirit 
dwells and rules in the hearts of believers (Rom. viii’ 9, 11; 2 Tim. i. 14). 
But we are not on this ground to make év twuiv refer to the individuals 
(Riickert and many others) ; for the community as such (ver. 17) is the 
temple (2 Cor. vi. 16 f. ; Eph. ii. 21 f. ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27). — Nade did 
not need the article, which comes in only retrospectively in ver. 17, just be- 
cause there is but one vadc Ocot in existence. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. 
li. 21; Wisd, iii. 14 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 35 ; Ecclus. li. 44. 


1 This lively interrogative turn of the dis- 2 [Here the Canterbury Revision seems to 
course, frequent though it isin this Epistle, have erred in using the indefinite article.— 
occurs only twice in the rest of Paul’s writ- Tye Gel 
ings, namely, in Rom. yi. 16, xi. 2. 


OHAPMi1T.5 (17,18. pit 


Ver. 17. Hi tu¢ . . . Gyté¢ gory] This is spoken of the real temple ; 
the application to the church as the ideal one is not made until the oiriéc¢ 
éore tyeic Which follows. It is an anticipation of the course of the argument 
to understand, as here already meant, the latter New Testament place of the 
divine presence (Hofmann). — Every Levitical defilement was considered a 
destroying of the temple, as was every injury to the buildings, and even 
every act of carelessness in the watching and superintendence of it. See 
Maimonides, de domo electa, i. 10, vii. 7. Deyling, Obdss. II. p. 505 ff. — 
@0epet| placed immediately after d6eipec at the head of the apodosis, to ex- 
press with emphasis the adequacy of the recompense. See Kiihner, II. 
p-. 626. What ¢fepei denotes is the temporal destruction, the punishment of 
death which God will bring upon the destroyer of His temple, as in the 
LXX. ¢@eipo is often used of God as inflicting such destruction. Comp. 
Gen. vi. 18; Micah ii. 10; 1 Kings ii. 27, al. —dywoc| as the dwelling 
of God, sacred therefore from all injury, and not to be destroyed without in- 
curring heavy divine penalty. —oiriwéc éore tueic] of which character (namely, 
dy.) are ye. In this we have the minor proposition of the syllogism 
-. contained in vv. 16 and 17: Him who destroys God’s temple God will 
destroy, because the temple is holy ; but ye also are holy, as being the 
spiritual temple ; consequently, he who destroys you will be destroyed of 
God. Paul leaves it to his readers themselves to infer, for their own 
behoof, that in this reasoning of his he means by the destruction of the 
(ideal) temple the deterioration of the church on the part of the sectarians, and 
by the penal destruction which awaits them, their ardéiea at the Messianic 
judgment (the ¢fopé of Gal. vi. 8). It is a mistake (with most commentators, 
including Luther) to regard oircvec as put for ot (see the passages where this 
seems to be the case in Struve, Quaest. Herod. I. p. 2 ff.), and to make it re- 
fer to vade rod Oeov: which temple ye are. That would rather yield the inap- 
propriate (see on ver. 16) plural sense : cujusmodi templa vos estis. See 
Porson and Schaefer, ad Hurip. Or. 908. Matthiae, p. 977. 

Ver. 18. Mydeic éavt. éarv.| Emphatic warning, setting the following ex- 
hortation, as directed against an existing evil which arose out of self-decep- 
tion, in that point of view ; comp. vi. 9, xv. 83; Gal. vi. 7. Those who 
were proud of their wisdom did not discern that they were destroying the 
temple of God with their sectarian proceedings. Theophylact remarks well 
upon égarart.: vowifwr,' btt dAAwe Eyer TO mpaywa Kal ovyY o¢ eirov. — doxei] 
believes, is of opinion, not appears (Vulgate, Erasmus) ; for it was the former 
that was objectionable and dangerous. Comp. viii. 2, xiv. 87; Gal. vi. 3. 
— oogoc elvac . . . ToT] év tuiv belongs to oddog elvar, and év TO aidve TobTw 
defines the oddo¢ elva év byiv more precisely, to wit, according to his non- 
Christian standing and condition (comp. ver. 19) : If any one is persuaded 
that he is wise among you in this age, i.e. if one claims for himself a being wise 
in your community, which belongs to the sphere of this pre-Messianic period. To 
the aidy ovtoc, despite of all its philosophy and other wisdom falsely so 
called (i. 20, ii. 6), the true wisdom, which is only in Christ (Col. ii. 3), is in 
fact a thing foreign and far off ; this aiév is a sphere essentially alien to the 
true state of being wise inthe church ; in it aman may have the Adyo¢ codiac 





80 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(Col. ii. 23), but not the reality. We must not therefore, in defiance of its 
place in the sentence, link éy 76 ai. +. merely to oé¢oc (Erasmus, Grotius, 
Riickert, and many others), in doing which éy is often taken as equivalent 
to card. Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Mosheim, Rosen- 
miiller, and others, join it to what follows, rendering either generally to this 
effect : ‘is a vulgo hominum pro stulto haberi non recuset ;” or with a more 
exact development of the meaning, as Hofmann : whoever thinks himself to 
be wise in the church, ‘‘ he, just on that account, is not wise, but has yet to 
become so, and must to this end become a fool in this present age of the 
world, because his wisdom is a wisdom of this world, and as such is fool- 
ishness in the eyes of God.” But the emphasis does not lie upon the contrast 
between év juiv and év 76 aiév t., but upon odgo¢ and pwpédc, as is plain from 
the fact that in the clause expressive of the aim we have the simple oddo¢ 
alone without év iviv. It may be seen, too, from ver. 19 (cod. tov xécpov) 
that Paul had included éy r. ai. r. in the protasis. — pwpd¢ yevécbw] t.e. let him 
rid himself of his fancied wisdom, and become (by returning to the pure 
and simple gospel unalloyed by any sort of philosophy or speculation) 
such a one as now in relation to that illusory wisdom is @ fool. — co¢é6¢] with 
emphasis : truly wise. See Col. i. 2, 3. The path of the Christian 
sapere aude proceeds from becoming a fool to wisdom, as from becom- 
ing blind to seeing (John ix. 39). 

Ver. 19. Giving the ground of the wapdc yevéo6 demanded in order to the 
yivecOar odgov. — tov Kécpov TobTov] 7.e. such as is peculiar to the pre-Messianic 
world (humanity), like the Hellenic sophistry, rhetoric, etc. ; comp. i. 21, 
ii. 6.— rapa r. Och] judice Deo ; Rom. ii. 13 ; Winer, p. -869 [E. T. 493]. 
How truly that wisdom was its own very opposite, and how utterly to Be 
given up | —yéyp. yap] Job v. 18, not according to the LXX., but express- 
ing the sense of the Hebrew with quite as great fidelity. The passage, 
however, serves as proof, not for the warning and admonition in ver. 18 
(Hofmann),—to take it thus would be arbitrarily to reach back over what 
immediately precedes the y4p,—but, as ver. 20 also confirms, for the state- 
ment just made, 7 yap codia x.t.4. If, namely, God did not count that wis- 
dom to be folly, then He could not be spoken of as He who taketh the wise in 
their craftiness, i.e. who brings it to pass that the wise, while they cunningly 
pursue their designs, do not attain them, but rather their craftiness turns to 
their own destruction. Thus the hand of God comes in upon their doings 
and takes them in their craftiness, whereby He just practically proclaims His 
judgment regarding their wisdom, that it is foolishness. As respects ravoup- 
yia, comp. the Hellenic distinction between it and the true wisdom in Plato, 
Menex. p. 247 A: raod te ériothun yopilouévn Stxatoobryyg Kat tH¢ GAAnE apETIC 
Tavoupyia, ov codia, daiverat. —6 dpacodu. is not ‘‘ex Hebr. pro finito dpdcce- 
ra” (Pott, following Beza), but the quotation, being taken out of its con- 
nection, does not form a complete sentence. Comp. Heb. i. 8; Winer, p. 
330 [E. T. 443]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 250 [E. T. 291]. — On dpdocecbar 
with the accusative (commonly with the genitive), comp. Herod. iii. 13, LXX. 
Lev. v. 12, Num. v. 26. 

Ver. 20. Idd] as in Rom. xv. 10; Matt. iv. 7. The passage quoted is 


CHAP, IIT., 21. 81 


Ps. xciv. 11, and the only variation fromthe Hebrew and the LXX. is in 
putting cogév instead of avpézwv, and that purposely, but with no violence 
to the connection of the original (the reference being to men of pretended 
wisdom). —ydrao.| empty, thoughts (for Paul, at all events, had dvaro0y. not 
cod. in view) which are without true substance. Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 23 
Bi: rept tryv pataiov dofoco¢iav. 

Ver. 21. ‘Qo7e|] Hence, that is to say, because this World's wisdom, this 
source of your kavyaoba év avOparog (See ver. 18), is nothing but folly before 
God, vv. 19, 20. According to Hofmann, dcore draws its inference from the 
whole section, vv. 10-20. But uydetc cavydobw x.7.A. manifestly corresponds 
to the warning pydeic éavt. éFar. k.7.A. In Ver. 18, from the discussion of 
which (ver. 19 f.) there is now deduced the parallel warning beginning 
with ore (ver. 21) ; and this again is finally confirmed by a sublime repre- 
sentation of the position held by a Christian (ver. 22 f.). — év avOpdrac] ‘id 
pertinet ad extenuandum,” Bengel ; the opposite of év Kupiy, i. 31. Hu- 
man teachers are meant, upon whom the different parties prided themselves 
against each other (ver. 5, i. 12). Comp. iv. 6. Billroth renders wrongly: 
on account of men, whom he has subjected to himself and formed into a sect. 
Hire IlatvAog . . . Kygac inver. 22 is decisive against this ; for how strangely 
forced itis to make pydeic refer to the teachers, and tuév to the church !— 
The imperative after dove (comp. iv. 5, x. 12; Phil. ii. 12) is not governed by 
that word, but the dependent statement beginning with dare changes to the 
direct. Sce Hermann, ad Viger. p. 852 ; Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. III. p. 276 ; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 776. — ravra yap budv éotiv|] with the emphasis on rdyra: 
nothing excepted, all belongs to you as your property ; so that to boast your- 
selves of men, consequently, who as party leaders are to be your property to 
the exclusion of others, is something quite foreign to your high position as 
Christians. Observe that we are not to explain as if it ran : twév yap rdvta 
éorv (‘‘illa vestra sunt, non vos illorum,” Bengel) ; but that the apostle has 
in view some form of party-confession, as, for example, ‘‘ Paul is mine,” or 
“‘ Cephas is my man,” and the like. It was thus that some boasted them- 
selves of individual personages as their property, in opposition to the ravra 
ju. &. It may be added that what is conveyed in this rdvra budy éory is not 
“‘the miraculous nature of the love, which is shed abroad in the hearts of 
believers by the Spirit, in virtue of which the man embraces the whole 
world, and enjoys as his own possession whatever in it is beautiful and glo- 
rious” (ravra 2), as is the view of Olshausen ; but rather, in accordance with 
the diverse character of the objects thereafter enumerated, the twofold idea, 
that all things are destined in reality to serve the best interests of the Chris- 
tians (comp. Rom. viii. 28 ff.), and consequently to be in an ethical sense 
their possession,’ and that the actual xAypovouia rod xécuov (Rom, iv. 13 f.) is 
allotted to them in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. 4 Esdr. ix. 14. The 
saying of the philosophers : Omnia sapientis esse” (see Wetstein), is a lower 
and imperfect analogue of this Christian idea. 


1 Hence Luther in his gloss rightly infers: ‘‘ Therefore no man hath power to make laws 
over Christians to bind their consciences.” 


82 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 22. Detailed explication of the réyra ; then.an emphatic repetition 
of the great thought ravra iu., in order to link to it ver. 23. —Tlatioc . . . 
Kyo. ] for they are designed to labour for the furtherance of the Christian 
weal. Paul does not write éyo ; as forming the subject-matter of a partisan 
confession, he appears to himself as a third person ; comp. ver. 5. — xécyoc] 
generally ; for the world, although as yet only in an ideal sense, is by desti- 
nation your possession, inasmuch as, in the coming aidv, it is to be subjected 
to believers by virtue of the participation which they shall then obtain in 
the kingly office of Christ (Rom. iv. 18, viii. 17; 1 Cor. vi. 2. Comp. 2 
Tim. ii. 12). More specific verbal explanations of xéoyoc, as it occurs in this 
full triumphant outpouring—such as reliqui omnes homines (Rosenmiiller and 
others), the unbelieving world (comp. also Hofmann), and so forth—are 
totally unwarranted by the connection. Bengel says aptly : ‘‘ Repentinus 
hic a Petro ad totum mundum saltus orationem facit amplam cum quadam 
quasi impatientia enumerandi cetera.” The eye of the apostle thus rises at 
once from the concrete and empirical to the most general whole, in point of 
matter (xéopuoc), condition (Cw, Oavaroc), time (éveotra, wéAAovTa). —Cwo . . . 
favatoc| comp. Rom. viii. 88. We are not to refer this, with Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and Grotius, to the teachers: ‘‘si vitam doctoribus protrahit 
Deus,” and ‘‘si ob evangel. mortem obeunt” (Grotius, comp. too, Michae- 
lis), nor to transform it with Pott into: things liwing and lifeless ; nor 
even is the limitation of it to the readers themselves (‘‘ live ye or die, it is to 
you for the best,” Flatt) in any way suggested by the text through the 
analogy of the other points. Both should rather be left without any special 
reference, life and death being viewed generally as relations occurring in the 
world. Both of them are, like all else, destined to serve for your good in 
respect of your attainment of salvation. Comp. Phil. i. 21 ; Rom. xiv. 7 ff. ; 
1 Cor. xv. 19 ff. Theodoret : xa? abrdc 08 6 Oavaroc Tie iuerépac évexev ddedelac 
éxnviyOn Ty oboe. — eite éveotora, eite uéAdovta| Similarly, we are not to re- 
strict things existing (what we find to have already entered on a state of sub- 
sistence ; see on Gal. i. 4) and things to come to the fortunes of the readers 
(Flatt and many others), but to leave them without more precise definition. 

Ver. 23. In ver. 22 Paul had stated the active relation of the Christians as 
regards ownership, all being made to serve them—a relation which, by its 
universality, must preclude all boasting of human authorities. He now 
adds to this their passive relation as regards ownership also, which is equally 
adverse to the same hurtful tendency, namely : but ye belong to Christ,—so 
that in this respect, too, the cavyaoba év avOpdrac of ver. 21 cannot but be 
unseemly. MRiickert would make rdvra yap tyudv éore x.t.A. IN ver. 22 the 
protasis and said by way of concession, so that the leading thought would 
lie in ver. 23: ‘‘ All indeed is yours ; but ye belong to Christ.” We are, 
he holds, to supply pév after ravta. But, even apart from this erroneous 
addition, there may be urged against his view, partly the fact that an inde- 
pendent emphasis is laid upon the thought ravra iuéy, as is clear at a glance 
both from its explication in detail and from the repetition of the phrase ; 
and partly the internal state of the case, that what Riickert takes as a con- 
cession really contains a very pertinent and solid argument against the kavy. 


_ 


CHAP, IIL, 23. 83 


év avOperoic. — Xpiotic dé Ocoi] and Christ, again, belongs to God, is subordi- 
nated to God, stands in His service. For xegad7 Xpiorod 6 Oedc, xi. 3. Comp. 
Luke ix. 20. The strict monotheism of the N. T. (see on Rom. ix. 5), and 
the relation of Christ as the Son to the Father, necessarily give the idea of 
the subordination of Christ under God.‘ As His equality with God and His 
divine glory before the incarnation (Phil. ii. 6), although essential, were 
still derived (cixov Tt. Oe0v, tpwrdtoKkog maone KTicewc, Col. 1. 15), so also the 
divine glory, which He has obtained by His exaltation after His obedience 
rendered to God even unto the death of the cross, is again a glory bestowed 
upon Him (Phil. ii. 9), and His dominion is destined to be given back to God 
(1 Cor. xv. 28). Since, however, this relation of dependence, affirmed by 
Xpioro¢ dé Ocov (comp. on Eph. i. 17), by no means expresses the conception 
of Arianism, but leaves untouched the essential equality of Christ with God 
(Theodoret aptly remarks : Xpiord¢ yap Oeov ovx O¢ KTiopa OEod, AAW O¢ 
vidc¢ Tov Ocowv), it was all the more a mistake to assume (so Calvin, Estius, 
_ Calovius, and many others, including Flatt and Olshausen) that the state- 
_ ment here refers only to the human nature. It is precisely on the divine side of 
His being that Christ is, according to Paul (Rom. i. 4), the Son of God, and 
therefore as yévynua yvfowv . . . o¢ avToy aitiov éywy KaTd TO TaTépa eivat 
(Chrysostom) not subordinate to Him simply in respect of His manhood. 
But for what reason does Paul add here at all this Xpiord¢ 2 Ocod, seeing it was 
not needed for the establishment of the prohibition of the kavyaoba: év dav- 
Opdéroie 2? We answer: Had he ended with tpeic dé Xpiotoiv, he would then, in 
appearance, have conceded the claim of the Christ-party, who did not boast 
themselves év avOpéroic (and hence were not touched by ver. 22), but held to 
Christ ; and this, in point of fact, is what Pott and Schott make out that 
the apostle here does. But this was not hisintention ; for the confession of 
the Christ-party was not, indeed, Ebionitic,—as if the X. 68 Ocod were aimed 
— against this (Osiander),—but, although right enough in idea, yet practically 
objectionable on the ground of the schismatic misuse made of it. He rises, 
therefore, to the highest absolute jurisdiction, that to which even Christ is 
subject, in order in this passage, where he rejects the three parties who sup- 
ported themselves on human authorities, to make the Christ-party, too, feel 
their error : Christ, again, is—not the head of a party, as many among you 
would make Him, but—tlelonging to God, and consequently exalted in the 
highest possible degree above all drawing in of His name into party-conten- 
tions. In this way, with no little delicacy, Paul sets the relation of the 
fourth Corinthian party also—of which ver. 22 did not allow the mention— 
in the light of the true Christian perspective ; to do which by no means lay 
too far from the path of his exhortation (Hofmann), but was very naturally 
suggested by the concrete circumstances which he could not but have in his 


eye. (1) 


Remarx.—The reference in ver. 22 f. to the party of Peter and of Christ is to 
be regarded as simply by the way. The whole section fromi. 13 to iv. 21 is di- 


1 See also Hahn, Deon Oe Ne Delep. 120.f. Ursprung der Stinde, I. p. 194 ff. Weiss, 57b/. 
Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 157 ff. Ernesti, Theol. p. 806. 


84 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


rected against the antagonism between the Pauline and the Apollonian parties 
(comp. on ver. 4); but the idea zdvta judy éottv, Which Paul holds up to these 
two, very naturally leads him to make all the parties sensible of their fault as 
well, although to enter further upon the Petrine and the Christ-party did not lie 
in the line of his purpose. The theory, so much in favour of late, which refers 
the polemic, beginning with i. 17, to the Christ-party (Jaeger, Schenkel, Gold- 
horn, Kniewel, etc.), has led to acts of great arbitrariness, as is most conspicu- 
ous in the case of Kniewel, who divides chap. iii. among all the four parties, 
giving vy. 3-10 to that of Paul and that of Apollos, vv. 12-17 to that of Peter, 
and ver. 18 f. to that of Christ ; while in the contrasts of ver. 22 (elre kéojoc.. . 
uéAAovTa] he finds the Christ-party’s doctrine of the harmony of all contrasts 
accomplished in Christ as the world-soul. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(H) ‘* Saved so as by fire.” Ver, 15. 


It may well be doubted whether Meyer’s view of this clause is correct. He 
makes it refer to the grade of salvation which the erring builder is to receive, 
and he gains this by eliding the force of the adverb of comparison. It is far 
better to retain the full natural meaning of the words, and explain them as = 
with difficulty. This is in accordance with the Scriptures quoted by the author. 
The man will just escape with his life, as one is rescued from a burning build- 
ing. To this, of course, may be added, as a corollary, that his salvation will be 
attended with loss, i.e. he will occupy a lower place in the kingdom of heaven 
than he would have done. Notwithstanding that the use of this passage in 
support of the doctrine of Purgatory has been condemned by the great Roman ~ 
Catholic commentator, Estius, it is still so applied by the less informed. The 
violence of such an application is obvious on a moment’s reflection. The 
text does not say that the man is saved by fire as a means of purification, but 
so as by fire—that is, scarcely or with difficulty. And the fire is not considered 
as preceding the judgment, but as taking place at the time of the judgment it- 
self, when the Lord Jesus will appearin His glory. <‘‘The day’’ (ver. 13) can- 
not, according to usage, denote anything else than the day of the coming of the 
Lord. It is the more important to resist the tenet of purgatorial fire, because it 
is the legitimate outcome of the Romish doctrine of justification, and rests upon 
the conviction that, the righteousness that justifies being infused and not imput- 
ed, many will be found at death too good to be sent to hell, but not good enough 
to enter heaven, and hence there requires to be a state and place in which by 
disciplinary fires their righteousness may be made complete. 


(1) No boasting in men. Vv. 21-23. 


This remarkable passage is an admirable conclusion of the protest against 
partisan attachment to individual leaders. The church was not made for the 
teachers, but the teachers for the church. Paul and Apollos and Cephas, how- 
ever variously gifted and however diverse their spheres or their modes of ac- 
tion, were yet united by being the common property of all believers. Then, as 
Stanley says, the Apostle proceeds to dilate upon the whole range of God’s gifts 
to His people. He expands the term world to take in not merely mundane 


NOTES. | 85 


greatness, but the whole created universe, and the utmost contrasts which imagi- 
nation can suggest, whether in life or in death, in the present or the future. 
The vast concatenation does not end here. Believers are but part of that 
golden chain which must be followed up till it unites them to Christ, and even 
further yet, up to the presence of God Himself. The final touch is worthy of 
the great Apostle. It represents Christ Himself as subordinate to God, and that, 
as Meyer justly says, not merely in His human nature, but His divine. The sub- 
ordination is as to the mode of subsistence and operation, which, however, is 
entirely consistent with identity of substance and equality in power and glory. 


86 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER IY. 


Ver. 2. 6 dé] Lachm. Rick. Tisch. read dde, with A B C D*¥ FG 8, min. Syr. 
Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Jerome, Aug. Ambr. Pelag. Sedul. Bede. This vast- 
ly preponderating testimony in favour of dde, and its infrequency with Paul 
(only again in Col. iv. 9), make the Recepta seem the result of change or error 
on the part of transcribers. —¢yTeitai] A C D E F GX, min. have (¢yréire. 
Recommended by Griesb. But BL and all the vss. and Fathers are against it. 
A copyist’s error. — Ver. 6. Instead of 6, A BC &, 31, Syr. p. Copt. Athan. 
Cyril have ¢ ; which is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. 
and Riickert. The Latin authorities have supra quam, which leaves their read- 
ing doubtful. The preceding raira naturally suggested d. — dpoveiv] is want- 
ingin A B D* E* FG &, 46, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Rightly deleted by 
Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert.!. A supplementary addition, in place of which 
Athanasius has ¢vavovca. — Ver. 9. br. after ydp has preponderant evidence 
against it, and should be deleted, as is done by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Su- 
perfluous addition. — Ver. 13, BAacd.] A C &*, 17 46, Clem. Origen (twice), Eu- 
seb. Cyril, Damasc. have dvod. Approved by Griesb., accepted by Riick. and 
Tisch. Rightly ; the more familiar (for the verb dvog. occurs nowhere else in 
the N. T., comp. 2 Cor. vi. 8), and at the same time stronger word was inserted. 
— Ver. 14. vovferé] A C &, min. Theophylact have vovferav [which is adopted 
by Westcott & Hort.—C.]. An assimilation to the foregoing participle. 


Vv. 1-5. The right point of view from which to regard Christian teachers 
(vv. 1, 2); Paul, nevertheless, for his own part, does not give heed to human 
judgment, nay, he does not even judge himself, but his judge is Christ (vv. 3, 4). 
Therefore his readers should give up their passing of judgments till the decision 
of the Parousia (ver. 5). " 

Ver. 1. Oftwc] is commonly taken as preparatory, emphatically paving 
the way for the é¢ iryp. which follows., Comp. iii. 15, ix. 26 5 2 Cor. ix. 
5; Eph. v. 88, a/., and often in Greek writers. The xavy. év av@p. before 
repudiated arose, namely, out of a false mode of regarding the matter ; Paul 
now states the true mode. Since, however, there is no antithetic particle 
added here, and since the following epithets : imp. Xpeorod and oixov. 
© e0% sound significantly like the tueic d? X puctov, Xpiotd¢ 6? O£0¥ which 
immediately precede them, oirwc is rather to be regarded as the sic retrospec- 
tive (in this way, in such fashion), and d¢ again as stating the objective gual- 


not the case ; and the former consideration 
cannot turn the scale against the decisive 


1 @povetvy has been defended again by 
Reiche in his Commentar. crit. I. p. 146 ff. 


He urges that the omission is not attested 
by the Greek Fathers, and, out of-all the 
versions, only by the Latin ones, and that 
the word is indispensable. But the latter is 


weight of the chief codices, among which 
only C—and eyen that not certainly—has 
dpovety, 


CHEAP) EM eres 87 


ity, in which the jueic have a claim to the ovtwe uae Aoyit. avOp. which is 
enjoined. Accordingly, we should explain as follows : Under this point of 
view, as indicated already in ver. 22 f. (namely, that all is yours ; but that 
ye are Christ’s ; and that Christ, again, is God’s), let men form their judg- 
ment of us, as of those who are servants of Christ and stewards of divine mys- 
teries. Let us but be judged of as servants of Christ, etc., according to 
the standard of that lofty Christian mode of view (ottwce) and how con- 
ciusively shut out from this sphere of vision will be the partisan xavyacOac 
év avOparorce! Men will be lifted high above that. — juac] 7.e. myself and 
such as I, by which other apostles also and apostolic teachers (like Apollos) 
are meant. In view of iii. 22, no narrower limitation is allowable. — dv0po- 
coc] not a Hebraism (WS, one ; so most interpreters, among whom Luther, 
Grotius, and others explain it wrongly every one), but in accordance with — 
a pure Greck use of the word in the sense of the indefinite one or a man 
(Plato, Protag. p. 355 A, Gorg. p. 500 C, al.). So also in xi. 28, Gal. vi. 
1. Bengel’s ‘‘homo guwivis nostris similis” is an importation. —imnp. X. x. 
oixov. uvot. Ocov] They are servants of Christ, and, as such, are at the same 
time stewards of God (the supreme ruler, iii. 23, the Father and Head of the 
theocracy, the olxoc Ocot, 1 Tim. iii. 15), inasmuch as they are entrusted 
with His secrets, t.e. entrusted and commissioned to communicate by the 
preaching of the gospel the divine decrees for the redemption of men and 
their receiving Messianic blessings (see on Rom. xi. 25, xvi. 25; Eph. 1. 
9 ; Matt. xiii. 11),—-decrees in themselves unknown to men, but fulfilled in 
Christ, and unveiled by means of revelation. They are to do this just as the 
steward of a household (see on Luke xvi. 1) has to administer his master’s 
goods. Comp. as regards this idea, ix. 17 ; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; Titus i. 7 ; 1 Pet. 
iv. 10. There isno reference whatever here to the sacraments, which Olshau- 
sen and Osiander again desire to include. Seei. 17. The whole notion of 
a sacrament, as such, was generalized ata later date from the actions to 
which men restricted it, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a narrower 
sense. — Observe, moreover: between the /ather, the Master of the house, 
and the oixovéjor there stands the Son, and He has from the Father the power 
of disposal (comp. on John viii. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ff.), so that the oixovdwoc 
are His servants. Paul uses irnpéryc only in this passage ; but there is no 
ground forimporting any special design into the word (suchas that it is 
humbler than didxovoc). Comp. on Eph. iii. 7. 

Ver. 2. If we read ade (see the critical remarks), we must understand the 
verse thus : Such being the state of the case, it is, for the rest, required of the 
stewards, etc., so that Aourdy (i. 16) would express something which, in con- 
nection with the relationship designed in ver. 1, remained now alone to be 
mentioned as pertaining thereto, while dde’ again, quite in accordance with 
the old classical usage (see Lehrs, Arist. p. 84 ff.), would convey the notion 
of sic, i.e. ‘‘ ewm eo statu res nostrae sint” (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 991). We 
might paraphrase, therefore, as follows : ‘‘ Such being the nature of our po- 

1The word would be singularly super- to treat it as belonging to ver. 1, and to 


fluous, and would drag behind inthe most —_ separate it by a point from Aoumoy, 
awkward way, were we, with Lachmann, 


88 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


sition as servants, the demand to be made upon the stewards of households * of 
course takes effect.” If we abide by the Recepta, 6 62 Aouxév must be render- 
ed : But as to what remains, i.e. but as respects what else there is which has 
its place in connection with the relationship of service spoken of in ver. 1, 
this is the demand, etc.; comp. on Rom. vi. 10. It is a perversion of the 
passage to make it refer, as Billroth does, to the preceding depreciation of 
the supposed merits of the teachers : ‘‘ but what still remains for them is, that 
they can at least strive for the praise of faithfulness.” The rest of the verse 
says nothing at all about a being able to strive ; for Cyreiras év means nothing 
else but : 7¢ 7s sought at their hand (requiritur), i.e. demanded of them. See 
Wetstein. Hofmann’s interpretation, too, is an impossible one. He makes 
6 68 ourévy down to ebpefy to be the protasis ; éuot dé x.7.A., and that running 
on as far as xipide éorev in ver. 4, to be the apodosis : As respects that, how- 
ever, which . . . is further required, namely, that one be found faithful, it 
is tome, etc. This interpretation gives us, instead of the simple, clearly 
progressive sentences of the apostle, along, obscurely and clumsily involved 
period, against which on linguistic grounds there are the two considera- 
tions—(1) that 6 dé Aowrdv Cyreirae Would presuppose some demand already 
conveyed in ver. 1, to which a new one was now added ; and (2) that the 
dé of the apodosis in ver. 8 would require to find its antithetic reference in 
the alleged protasis in ver. 2 (comp. Acts xi. 17 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 
f.), namely, to this effect : to me, on the contrary, not concerned about this 
required faithfulness, 7t 7s, etc. Now the first is not the case, and the second 
would be absurd. Neither the one difficulty nor the other is removed by 
the arbitrarily inserted thoughts, which Hofmann seeks to read between the 
lines.” —iva] is sought with the design, that there be found. Hence the object 
of the seeking is conveyed in the form expressive of design. That ebpicxecfar 
is not equivalent to eiva (Wolff, Flatt, Pott, and others) is plain here, espe- 
cially from the correlation in which it stands to ¢yreirar. — ric] 1.e. any one of 
them. See Matthiae, p. 1079 ; Nigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 299, ed. 3. — 
mtotéc| Luke xii. 42, xvi. 10 ff.; Matt. xxv. 21 ff.; Eph. vi. 21, al. The 
summing up of the duties of spiritual service. 

Ver. 3. I, for my part, however, feel myself in no way made dependent on 
your judgment by this Cyreira x.7.2. — ei¢ éAdyiorév éotwy| eic, in the sense of 
giving the result : 2t somes to something utterly insignificant, evinces itself as 
in the highest degree unimportant. Comp. Pindar, Ol. 1. 122: é yapw 
réddera, Plato, Ale. I. p. 126 A ; Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 131 [E. T. 
150]. —iva] does not stand for érav (Pott), nor does it take the place of the 
construction with the infinitive (so most interpreters) ; but the conception 
of design, which is essential to iva, isin the mind of the writer, and has 


1 This év rots olkovou. is not “uncalled 
for and superfluous” after oée (as Hofmann 
objects); for Paul had, in ver. 1, described 
the official service of the teachers by two 
designations, but now desires to attach 
what more he has to say in ver. 2 specially 
to the second of these designations, and 
henco he has again to bring in the oikovdmor, 


2In Aourdv he finds: ‘* Besides this, that 
the stewards act in accordance with their 
name.’’ By the antithetic evo. dé, again, 
Paul means: ‘‘in contrast to those who 
conduct themselves as thovgh he must con- 
sider it of importance to him.’’ By inter- 
polations of this sort, everything may be 
moulded into what shape one will. 


CHAP. IV., 4. 89 


given birth to the expression. The thought is : I have an exceedingly slight 
interest in the design of receiving your judgment. — avaxpi0d] ‘‘ fidelisne 
sim nec ne,” Bengel. — 7 id avOp. ju.| or by a human day at all. The day, 
z.e. the day of judgment, on which a human sentence is to go forth upon me, 
is personified. It forms a contrast with the ijuépa Kupiov, which Paul pro- 
ceeds hereafter, not indeed to name, but to describe, see ver. 5. — aA?’ ovdé] 
yea, not even, aS in ili. 2. — éuavrév| Billroth and Rickert think that the 
contrast between the persons properly demanded aird¢ éuavr. here, which, 
however, has been overlooked by Paul. But the active expression éuavrov 
avaxpive is surely the complete contrast to the passive if’ tu. avaxp.; hence 
aitéc might, indeed, have been added to strengthen the statement, but there 
was no necessity for its being so.—The avaxpivey in the whole verse is neither 
to be understood solely of unfavourable, nor solely of favourable judging, 
but of any sort of judging regarding one’s worth in general. See yy. 4, 5. 
Ver. 4. Parenthetical statement of the ground of Paul’s not even judging 
himself (oidév . . . dedix.), and then the antithesis (dé : but indeed) to the 
above ovdé éuavt. avaxpivw. — ydp| The element of proof lies neither in the 
first clause alone (Hofmann), norin the second clause alone, so that the 
first would be merely concessive (Baumgarten, Winer, Billroth, Riickert, 
* who supplies pév here again, de Wette, Osiander), but in the antithetic rela- 
tion of both clauses, wherein 422d has the force of at, not of ‘‘ sondern :” I 
judge not my own self, because I am conscious to myself of nothing, but am not 
thereby justified, i.e. because my pure (official, see ver. 2) sel f-consciousness 
(comp. Acts xxiil. 1, xxiv. 16 ; 2 Cor. i. 12) ds still not the ground on which 
my justification rests. Asregards the expression, comp. Plato, Apol. p. 21 B: 
ovte péya ode opuiKxpov Ebvoida éuavt} copd¢ Ov, Rep. p. 331 A; and Horace, Hp. 
i. 1. 61: ‘‘néil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa ;” Job xxvii. 6.—oik év 
tovtw dedix.| is ordinarily understood wrongly : ‘‘I do not on that account 
look upon myself as guiltless.” For the words ov« év rotrm, negativing justifi- 
cation by a good conscience, make it clear that dedsc. expresses the cus- 
tomary conception of being justified by faith (see on Rom. i. 17 ; so rightly, 
Calovius, Billroth, Riickert), since, on the view just referred to, we must 
have had éy rotrw ov. The ov isas little in its wrong place here as in xv. 51. 
Note that the dedccaiwua is to the apostle an undoubted certain fact ;? hence 


1 Paul’s thought has run thus :—‘‘ Were I 
justified by my conscience free of reproach, 
then I should be entitled to pass judgment 
on myself, namely, just in accordance with 
the standard of the said conscience. But 
seeing that I am noé¢ justified by this con- 
science (but by Christ), it cannot even serve 


until the judgment. Acdccatwnar, however, 
does not refer to the being found righteous 
at the day of judgment (against Lipsius, 
Rechtfertigungsl. p. 48), but,as the perfect 
shows, to the righteousness odtained by 
faith, which to the consciousness of the 
apostle was at all times a present blessing. 


me as a standard for self-judgment, and I 
must refrain therefrom, and leave the judg- 
ment regarding me to Christ.’”?> Thisapplies 
also against de Wette, who holds our exposi- 
tion to be contrary to the context, because 
what follows is not 0 6é dcxarav, but o dé ava- 
«xpivwv. Moreover, the further imputation 
of moral desert is certainly not done away 
with by justification, but it remains in force 


—Observe, further, how alien to Paul was 
the conception that the conscience is the 
expression of the real divine life in the man. 
Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 141. 

2 So precisely Ignatius, ad Rom. 5: adr’ ov 
Tapa TovTO dedtxaiwnar, The certitudo gratiae 
is expressed but as not based upon the con- 
science void of reproach. 


90 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


we may not explain it, with Hofmann: Not thereby am I pronounced 
righteous as respects faithfulness in the fulfilment of my office, but only if (?) 
the Lord shall charge me with no neglect of duty. That would plainly 
make the ded:xaiwuac problematic.’ — Kipioc| Christ, ver. 5. 

Ver. 5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, namely, with respect tome ; 
not as Billroth thinks : one sect regarding another, which is inadmissible in 
view of the preceding avaxp. we and of the whole passage, vv. 3, 4, which all 
applies to Paul. The process of thought from ver. 3 onwards is, namely, 
this : ‘‘ For my part, you may judge meif you will, I make very little of that ; 
but (ver. 4) seeing that I do not even judge myself, but that he that judgeth me 
is Christ, I therefore counsel you (ver. 5) not to pass a judgment upon me pre- 
maturely.”’ —mpd Katpov| i.e. before it is the right time, Matt. viii. 29 ; 
Eccles. xxx. 24, li. 80; Lucian, Jov. Trag. 47. How long such judging 
would coptinue to be zpd xapov, we learn only from what comes after ; 
hence we must not by anticipation assign to xaipéc the specific sense of 
tempus reditus Christi. — tx] t.€. kpiow tid, John vii. 24. — xpivere| describes 
the passing of the judgment, the consequence of the dvaxp., in a manner accord- 
ant with the looking forward to the Messianic judgment. Luther, Raphel, 
and Wolf render: aliwm alu praeferte ; but this runs counter to the context, 
for it must be analogous to the general avaxp. éw¢ dv &2.0y 6 x. | Epexegesis of 
mpo Kkaipov : judge not before the time (judge not, I say), wntil the Lord 
shall have come. Then only is it a xaipsov xpivecv, because then only can ‘the 
judgment be pronounced rightly according to the Lord’s decision. The av 
marks out the coming as in so far problematical (depending upon circum- 
stances; see Hartung, Partikell. p. 291), inasmuch as it was not, indeed, 
doubted, and yet at the same time not dependent upon subjective determi- 
nation, but an object of expectant faith in the unknown future. Comp. 
Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27, xiii. 35; Rev. il. 25. —éc kai] xai is 
the also customary with the relative, the effect of which is to bring into 
prominence some element in keeping with what has gone before (Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 152 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 283]). In His function 
as Judge, in which He is to come, He will do this also, He will light up, #.e. 
make manifest, what is hidden in the darkness. Respecting dwricez, comp. 
Eccles. xxiv. 32 ; 2 Tim. i. 10; Plut. Mor. p. 931 C, and the passages in 
Wetstein. What withdraws itself from the light as its opposite (Hofmann, 
who takes cai . . . xai aS Meaning as well, as also) is included here, but not 
that alone. Compare rather the general statement in Luke vill. 17. — kai 
gavep. T. Bovd. tov Kkapd.] a special element selected from the foregoing 
general affirmation. The significant bearing of what Paul here affirms of 
Christ at His coming is the application which the readers were to make of 
it to himself and the other teachers ; it was to be understood, namely, that 
their true character also would only then become manifest, 7.e. be laid open 
as an object of knowledge, but now was not yet submitted to judgment.— 
kat tote . . . Oeov] so that ye can only then pass judgment on your teachers 

1 [Most critics agree that there is here no question of his fidelity was one not to be 


reference to the doctrine of justification, | decided by his conscience, but by the Lord, 
and that all the Apostle means is that the —T. W. C.] 


CHAP. IV., 6. 91 


with sure (divine) warrant for what ye do. The chief emphasis is upon the 
ad T. Ocov, Which is for that reason put at the end (Kiihner, II. p. 625), and 
next to it upon what is placed first, 6 éracvoc. This does not mean praemium 
(so Flatt, with older expositors, citing wrongly in support of it such pas-- 
sages as Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 8; 1 Pet. i. 7, ii. 14; Wisd. xv. 19; Polybius, 
ii. 58. 11), nor is it a vox media (as, following Casaubon, ad Epict. 67, Wolf, 
Rosenmiiller, Pott, and others assume wholly without proof); but it denotes 
simply the praise, the commendation. The apparent incongruity with ékdorw 
is obviated by the article: the praise that appertains to him (Bernhardy, 
p. 315) shall be given to each,—so that Paul here puts entirely owt of sight 
those who deserve no praise at all. And rightly so. For his readers were 
to apply this to him and Apollos ; hence, as Calvin justly remarks : ‘‘ haec 
vox ev bonae conscientiae fiducia nascitur.”” See ver. 4. Theophylact’s view, 
although adopted by many, is an arbitrary one : ‘‘ unde et contrarium datur 
intelligi, sed mavult eidnyeiv,” Grotius (so also Bengel, Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen). — a0 7. Ocov] not from men, as ye now place and praise the one 
above the other, but on the part on God, for Christ the Judge is God’s 
vicegerent and representative, John v. oe ff. ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31; Rom. 
ii. 16, al. 

Vv. 6-13. Now, what I have hitherto given utterance to in a manner appli- 
cable to myself wh Apollos, has for its object to wean you ve om party-pride 
(ver. 6). Rebuke of this pride (vv. 7-138). 

Ver. 6. Aé] pursuing the subject ; the apostle turns now to the jinal re- 
monstrances and rebukes which he has to give in reference to the party- 
division among them ; in doing so, he addresses his readers generally (not 
the teachers) as ddeAdot with a winning warmth of feeling, as ini. 11. — 
tavra| from iil. 5 onwards, where he brings in himself and Apollos specially 
and by name, assigning to both their true position and its limits to be ob- 
served by them with all humility, and then appending to this the further 
instructions which he gives up toiv. 5. Taira isnot to be made to refer back 
to i. 12, where Paul and Apollos are not named alone (so Baur, following 
older expositors). — peteoynu. ei¢ éwart. x. ’AtoAAO] I have changed the form of 
at into myself and Apollos, i.e. I have, instead of directing my discourse to 
others, upon whom it might properly have been moulded, written in such 
fashion in an altered form, that what has been said applies now to myself 
and Apollos. It is on account of the contrast with others which floats before 
the apostle’s mind, that he writes not simply ei¢ éué, but ei¢ éuavtdy 3 etc, 
again, denotes the reference of this change of form to the parties concerned. 
Respecting peracynuativew, to transform, comp. 2 Cor. xi. 14, Phil. iii. 21 ; 
Symm. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8; 4 Macc. ix. 21; Plato, Legg. x. p. 903 E, 906 C 
(pjua petecxnuatiouévov) ; Lucian, Imag. 9, Hale. 5 ; Heliodorus, ii. p. 93. 
The cyjua, to which the word here refers, is the form in which the fore- 
going statements have been presented, which has been other than the con-’ 
crete state of the case at Corinth would properly have involved ; for he 
has so moulded it aS to make that bear upon himself and Apollos, which 
- more properly should have applied to others. Now, who are those others? 
Not the order of teachers generally (Calovius, Billroth, de Wette, Neander, 


92 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


et al., also my own former view), for in that case we should have no change 
of form, but only a specializing; but rather: the instigators of parties in 
Corinth, with their self-exaltation and jealousy, as is clear from the fol- 
lowing clause stating the design in view, and from ver. 7 ff. It was they 
who split up the church and infected it with their own evil qualities. But 
from Paul and Apollos the readers were to learn to give up all such conduct, 
—from those very men, who had respectively founded and built up the 
church, but who by these partisans had been stamped with the character 
of heads of sects and so misused, to the grievous hurt of the Christian com- 
munity. . Baur’s explanation is contrary to the notion of wetecynu., but in 
favour of his own theory about the Christ-party : what has been said of 
me and Apollos holds also of the other parties ; this not applying, however, 
to trove tov Xpiorov, who are to be regarded as forming a peculiar party by 
themselves. Lastly, it is also a mistake (see Introd. § 1) to interpret it 
with Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others : 
‘‘T have put our names as jictitious in place of those of the actual leaders of 
parties ;”? or to hold, with Pareus and Mosheim, that peraoy. refers to the 
homely jigures which Paul has used of himself and Apollos (gardeners, 
husbandmen, builders, house-stewards), from which the readers were to 
learn humility. These figures were surely lofty enough, since they repre- 
sented the teachers as Oeo cuvepyote ! Moreover, the figures in themselves 
plainly could not teach the Corinthians humility ; the lesson must lie in 
the intrinsic tenor of the ideas conveyed. —’AroAAd] the same form of the 
accusative as in Acts xix. 1. A B s* have ’AroAddv. See regarding both 
forms, Buttmann’s ausf. Gr. I. p. 207 f. ; Kiihner, § 124, ed. 2. —dv tuac] 
not in any way for our own sakes. — iva év quiv x.7.4.] more precise explana- 
tion of the dv’ iua¢ (‘‘instructionis vestrae causa,” Estius) : in order that ye 
might learn by us (Winer, p. 861 [E. T. 483]), that is to say, by having us 
before you as an example of shunning undue self-exaltation, in accordance 
with what I have stated regarding our official position, duty, responsibility, 
etc. — 70 uy imp 6 yéyp.] The elliptical : ‘‘ not above what is written,” is made 
to rank as a substantive by the ré (Matthiae, § 280) ; for ¢poveiv is spurious 
(see the critical remarks). The suppression of the verb after uf in lively 
discourse is common in the classics. See Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 153 ; 
Kihner, II. p. 607; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607. The short, terse uy imép 6 
yéyp. may have been an old and familiar saying of the Rabbins (Ewald) ; 
only Paul never quotes such elsewhere. — 6 yéyp. is by Luther and most ex- 
positors (including Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich, Pott, Billroth, 
Neander) made to refer to what Paul has written in the preceding section. 
But Grotius hits the truth in the matter when he says: yéyparra: in his 
libris semper ad libros V. T. refertur. Only Grotius should not have re- 
ferred it to a single passage (Deut. xvii. 20 ; comp. also Olshausen) which 
the readers could not be expected to divine. It denotes generally the rule 


1 Michaelis: ‘‘I know quite well that no fence,’ etc. But, as Calovius justly ob- 
sect among you calls itself after myself or serves, the werarxynpatiouds is here not ‘*‘ per 
Apollos... 5 the true names I ratherre- _fictionis, sed per jigurationis modum.” 
frain from giving, in order to avoid of- 


CHAP. IV., 6. 93 


written in the O. T., which is not to be transgressed ; and this means here, 
according to the context, the rule of humility and modesty, within the bounds 
of which a man will not be vainly puffed up, nor will presume to claim 
anything that lies beyond the limits of the ethical canon of the Scriptures. 
Comp. Riickert, Reiche, Ewald. And Paul could the more readily express 
himself in this general way, inasmuch as all the quotations hitherto made 
by him from the O. T. G. 19, 31, iii. 19) exhorted to humility. It is 
against the context to suppose, with Cajetanus and Beza, that the reference 
is to the dogmatic standard of the O. T., which was not to be transcended 
by pretended wisdom. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact went so 
far as to refer it to sayings of Christ (such as Mark x. 44 ; Matt. vii. 1; 
Theodoret even adds to these (1 Cor. vii. 24), which neither Paul nor his 
readers could think of in connection with the habitually used yéyp.—With- 
out having the slightest support in the use and wont of the language (for 
in passages like Pindar, Wem. vi. 13, Eur. Jon. 446 [455], ypagew has just 
the ordinary force of to write), and wholly in the face of the N. T. usage of 
yéyparra, Hofmann brings in here the general notion of the definite measure 
which is asertbed, adjusted to each by God (Rom. xii. 3). Nor is any coun- 
tenance lent to this interpretation by ypduua in Thuc. v. 29. 4; for that 
means a written clause (see Kriiger). What Paul means is the objective 
sacred rule of the Scriptures, the presumptuous disregard of which was the 
source of the mischief at Corinth ; ‘‘wlews aperit,” Beza. 
k.T.A.| Lor one another against the other, is a telling description of the parti- 
san procedure ! The members of a party plumed themselves to such an ex- 
tent on their own advantages, that one did so in behalf of the other (irép, 
comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2), seeking thereby mutually among themselves to main- 
tain and exalt their own reputation (ei¢ rép tov évéc), and that with hostile 
tendency towards the third person, who belonged to another party (xara row 
érépov). Olshausen understands izép rod évéc of their outbidding each other 
in pretensions, which, however, would require the accusative with ixép ; 
and Winer, p. 358 [E. T. 478], renders : ‘‘so that he deems himself exalted 
above the other ;” against which—apart from the fact that ixép with the 
genitive does not occur in this sense in the N. T. (see, moreover, Matthiae, 
p. 13860)—the immediate context is conclusive, according to which it is he 
only who is despised by the gvovofuevoc, who can be the érepog (the different 
one) ; and just as eic stands in antithetic correlation with rot érépov, so ixép 
also does with xaré ; comp. Rom. viii. 31; Mark'ix. 40. The ordinary in- 
terpretation is: ‘‘ On account of the teacher, whom he has chosen to be his 
head,” Rickert ; comp. Reiche, Ewald, Hofmann. But like ¢ic, so irép rot 
évéc also must refer to the collective subject of gvovotcfe, and consequently 
both of them together convey the same sense as irép GAA#Awv, only in a more 
concrete way. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 11; Susann. 52; Ecclus. xlii. 24 f. ; 
1 Macc. xiii. 28 ; often, too, in Greek writers. — The gvovotcba of a sic brép 
tov évécg takes place xara rod érépov in the jealous wranglings of mutually op- 
posing parties reciprocally, so that each has always full room for the xara roo 
érépov (against Hofmann’s objection). — gvowicbe] the present indicative after 
iva occurs only here and in Gal. iv. 17. The instances of it, wont to be ad- 





iva py etc bre 


94 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


duced from classical writers, have been long since given up. See Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 851 f. ; Schneider, ad Xen. Ath. i. 11. The passages, 
again, in Kypke and Valckenaer, where iva is found with the past indicative, 
were wholly inapplicable here. Comp. on Gal. iv. 17, note ; Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Symp. p. 181 E. On these grounds Billroth and Riickert assume 
that Paul had meant to form the subjunctive, but had formed it wrongly ; 
so too, before them, Bengel characterized the form as a ‘‘singularis ratio 
contractionis ;” and Reiche also, in his Comment. crit. I. p. 152, satisfies 
himself. with the notion of an erroneously formed contraction. As if we 
were warranted in taking for granted that the most fluent in language of 
the apostles could not be safely trusted with forming the mood of a verb in 
ow! Winer finds here an improper usage of the later Greek.* But, apart 
from the absence of all proof for this usage in the apostolic age (it can only 
be proved in much later writings, as also in modern Greek ; see Winer, 
p. 272 [E. T. 862]), had Paul adopted it, he would have brought it in 
oftener, and not have written correctly in every other case ;? least of all, 
too, would he have put the ¢ndicative here, when he had just used the cor- 
rect subjunctive immediately before it (ud@yre). Fritzsche (ad Matth. p. 836) 
took iva as whi, and explained : ‘‘wbi (i.e. gua conditione, quando demisse 
de vobis statuere nostro exemplo didiceritis) minime alter in alterius detri- 
mentum extollitur.” At a later date (in Priteschiorum opusc. p. 186 ff.) he 
wished to resort to emendation, namely : iva ’ev juiv wdOyte Td py bréip 6 yéypan- 
Tal dpoveiv, Eva pH VTEp TOV Evdc GvOLovoAaL KaTa TOW ETEpoO (SO, 
too, very nearly Theodoret). But although it might easily enough have 
happened that iva wf should be written by mistake in place of fa uf, the 
consequence of that mistake would in that case necessarily have been the 
alteration of @vovodcba:,* not into ¢voiovefe, but into ¢vovcbe, and the sub- 
junctive, not the indicative, must therefore have had the preponderance of 
critical evidence in its favour (but it is found, in point of fact, only in 44, 
Chrys: ms.). The only explanation of iva which is in accordance with the 
laws of the language, and therefore the only admissible one, is that given 
by Fritzsche, ad Matth. l.c. ; iva cannot be the particle of design, because it 
is followed by the indicative ; it must, on the contrary, be the local particle, 
where, and that in the sense of whereby, under which relation, so that it ex- 
presses the position of the case (Homer, Od. vi. 27; Plato, Gorg. p. 484 E ; 
Sophocles, Oed. Col. 627, 1239 ; Eur. Hee. ii. 102, 711, Andoc. vi. 9, al. ; 


1S0, too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 878; Hof- 
mann on Gal. p. 1388. Barnab. 7: twa. 
éet, is an earlier example than any adduced 
by Winer and Wieseler. But how easily dec 
might have been written here by mistake 
for 67, which is so similarin sound! (comp. 
Dressel, p. 17). Should det, however, be the 
original reading, then tva may just as well 
be wbdi, as in our passage. The readings 
asere and pertéxete in Ignatius, ad Lph. 4, are 
dubious (Dressel, p. 124).—Buttmann’s con- 
jecture (newt. Gr. p. 202 [E. T. 285]), that the 
contracted presents, on account of the 
final syllable haying the circumflex, repre- 


s 


sent the futures, is totally destitute of 
proof. 

21 Thess. iv. 13 included (against Tischen- 
dorf).—In Col. iv. 17, wAnpots is subjunctive. 
—As respects Lachmann’s erroneous read- 
ing, 2 Pet. i. 10, Wieseler, p. 379, is right.— 
In John xvii. 3, Gal. vi. 12, Tit. ii. 4, Rom. 
xiii. 17, the indicative readings are to be re- 
jected (in opposition to Tischendorf), 

3 The &, too, has dvcwovedo. But how 
often does that codex interchange a and ¢! 
Immediately before it has yeypamte instead 
of yeypam7at, 


CHAP. IV., 7. 95 
also Schaefer, ad Soph. O. C. 621 ; and Baeumlein, Partihk. p. 143 f.). What 
Paul says then is this : in order that ye may learn the ne wltra quod scriptum 
est, whereby (i.e. in the observance of which rule) ye then (@vovodvobe is the future 
realized as present) do not puff up yourselves, etc. Suitable though it wauld 

-be, and in accordance with the apostle’s style (Rom. vil. 13 ; Gal. iii. 14, 
iv. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 3), that a second telic iva should follow upon the first, » 
still the linguistic impossibility here must turn the scale against it. To 
put down the indicative’to the account of the transcribers has against it the 
_ almost unanimous agreement of the critical evidence in excluding the sub- 

junctive (which would be inexplicable, on the supposition of the indicative 
not being the original). Again, to trace it back to the origin of the Epistle 
by assuming that Paul made a slip in dictating, or his amanuensis in taking 
down his words, is all the more unwarranted, seeing that the self-same phe- 
nomenon recurs in Gal. iv. 17, while the clause here, as it stands, admits of 
a rendering which gives a good sense and is grammatically correct. — The 
subjective form of the negation 7, in the relative clause, has arisen from 
the design cherished by Paul, and floating before his mind. Comp. e.g. 
Sophocles, Trach. 797: pébec évtav#’ brov pe wh tic pera Bpotdv ; and see 
Baeumlein, wt supra, p. 290 ; Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 603].. 

Ver. 7. The words iva py. . . érépov are now justified by two consider- 
ations—(1) Wo one maketh thee to differ ; it is an imaginary difference of 
thine own making, which thou settest between thee and others. (2) What 
thou possessest thou hast not from thyself, and it is absurd to boast thyself of 
it as though it were thine own work. Hofmann holds that Paul in his first 
proposition glances at his own difference from others, and in his second at 
the gifts of Apollos ; but this is neither indicated in the text, nor would it 
accord with the fact that he and Apollos are to be examples of humility to 
the readers, but not examples to humble them—namely, by high position and 
gifts. —oé] applies to each individual of the preceding iyeic, not therefore 
simply to the sectarian teachers (Pott, following Chrysostom and several of 
the old expositors). — The literal sense of dvaxpiver is to be retained. The 
Vulgate rightly renders : ‘‘ Quis enim te discernit?” Comp. Acts xv. 9; 
Homer, Od. iv. 179; Plato, Soph. p. 253 E, Charm. p. 171 C. This of 
course refers, in point of fact, to supposed pre-eminence ; but Paul will not 
describe it as pre-eminence (contrary to the common rendering : Who maketh 
thee to differ for the better ?). —ri dé éyeic x.7.A.| dé, like that which follows, 
heaps question on question. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169. To what 
Paul is pointing in the general : ‘‘ But what possessest thou,” etc., their own 
conscience told his readers, and it is clear also from the next question, that, 
namely, of which they boasted, their Christian insight, wisdom, eloquence, 
and the like. He certainly did not think of himself and the other teachers 
as the source (éiaBec) of the gifts (Semler, Heydenreich, Pott), which would 
be quite contrary to his humble piety, but : ovdév oixofev éyerc, aAAG Tapa 
Tov Oe0v AaBdv, Chrysostom. Comp. iii. 5, xii. 6, xv. 10. — ei dé Kai éA.] 


1 [Still it is better with most criticstotake foot says is not unusualin the later writers. 
the particle as a conjunction and consider —T. W.C.] 
the phrase a solecism, which Bishop Light- 


96 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


again, even if thou hast received, even if thou hast been endowed with gifts, 
which I will by no means deny. Ei «ai is not meant to represent the pos- 
session of them as problematical (Riickert), but is concessive. Comp. 2 
Cor. iv. 8. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832 ; comp. Hartung, I. p. 140 f. ; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f£. — ri kavydoa x.7.A.] obdeie éx’ GAAoTpiac TapaKxarabh- 
Kalc meyagpovei, éemaypurvel 6& TabTac, iva dvAden TO dedwxdt1, Theodoret. 

Ver. 8. The discourse, already in ver. 7 roused to a lively pitch, becomes 
now bitterly ironical, heaping stroke on stroke, even as the proud Corinthi- 
ans, with their partisan conduct, needed a voviecia (ver. 14) to teach them | 
humility. The transition, too, from the individualizing singular to the 
plural corresponds to the rising emotion. The interrogate way of taking 
the passage (Baumgarten) weakens it without reason ; for the disapproval 
of such bitter derision (Stolz, Riickert) is, in the first place, over-hasty, 
since Paul could not but know best how he had to chastise the Corinthians; 
and, in the second, it fails to recognize the fact, that he, just in conse- 
quence of the purity of his conscience, could give rein to the indignant 
temper amply warranted in him by the actual position of things, without 
justifying the suspicion of self-seeking and thirst for power (this in opposi- 
tion to Riickert). —In kexop. éoré, émAour., and éBaoraA.. we have a vehement 
climax : Already sated are ye, already become rich are ye; without our help ye 
have attained to dominion! The-sarcastic force of this address, which shows 
the repulsive shape in which the inflated character and demeanour of the 
Corinthians presented itself, is intensified by the emphatically prefixed 7dy7 

. . 70n and yupic yuav: ‘already ye have, what was expected only in the 
coming aidv, fulness of satisfaction and of enrichment in Messianic bless- 
ings ; without our help (mine and that of Apollos, ver. 6) are ye arrived at 
the highest stage of Messianic power and glory, at the Bao:Aeia 1” You have 
already reached such a pitch of Christian perfection, are become without us 
such mightily exalted and dominant personages, and there is presented in 
you an anticipation of the future Messianic satisfaction, of the Messianic 
fulness of possession and dominion. Ordinarily, xexop. and éxAovr. (comp. 
Rev. iii. 17) have been taken as referring specially to Christian knowledge 
and other endowments (comp. i. 5), and éGacvA. either as referring likewise 
to knowledge, the highest degree of it being meant (Vater, Heydenreich), 
or to high prosperity and repute in general (Calvin, Justiniani, Lightfoot, 
Wetstein, Flatt, Pott), or to the quiet security in which kings live (Grotius), 
or to the ‘‘ dominium et jus statuendi de rebus Christianis” (Semler), or to 
the domination of the one sect over the other (Estius), or of the teacher over 
his party (Billroth is undecided between these two views). But all these 
interpretations fail to do justice to the sarcastic method of expression, although 
they in part correctly enough describe the state of the case, which is here 
ironically presented. (3) The right view may be seen in Hofmann also, In 
connection with the é8aova. left without being more precisely defined, nothing 
came so naturally and at once to the Christian consciousness as the thought 
of the Messianic BaciAcia.' And how well this idea corresponds to the wish 


1So rightly also Schrader, Riickert, de mann. Comp. Olshausen (who, however, 
Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Hof- gives a rationalizing view of the ruling). 


CHAP. IV., 9. 97 


which follows! If, however, éZac. applies to the Messianic ruling (see on 
ili. 22 ; Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 370), and consequently to the ovuBacireverv of 
2 Tim. ii. 12, comp. Rom. viii. 17, then in that case xexop. and ériovr. also, 
to preserve the symmetry of this ironical picture, must be understood in the 
sense of the Messianic consummation of all things, and must denote the 
being full and rich kar’ éoy#v (namely, in the blessings of the Messianic 
salvation), which for the Christian consciousness did not need to be partic- 
ularly specified. Comp. Matt. v.65; 2 Cor. vill. 9. The perfect brings 
before us the state, the aorists the fact of having entered upon the possession. 
See Kitihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.18. As to 70dn, i.e. now already, see on John 
iv. 35. — ywpic juov] without whose work, in fact, you would not be Chris- 
tians at all !—xa? ddeAdv ye x.7.A.] and (the thought suddenly striking his 
mind) would that ye had indeed attained to dominion! In the later Greek 
writers é¢eAov is used as a particle, and joined with the indicative, 2 Cor. xi. 
1; Gal. v. 12. See Matthiae, p. 1162. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 
214 f.]. Ié strengthens the force of é¢eAov ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
372 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 55f. The thought is: ‘Apart from this, 
that ye have without us become rulers, would that ye had at least (yé) become 
such! Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 281 f. —iva k. queic byiv ovuBac.] Ye 
would doubtless in that case, Paul deems, suffer us also to have some share 
(beside you) in your government ! The subjunctive is quite according to 
rule (in opposition to Riickert), seeing that éfac:A. denotes something com- 
pleted from the speaker’s present point of view (have become rulers), and see- 
ing that the design appears as one still subsisting in the present. See 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 617 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 43 B. — Observe, 
we may add, how the sarcastic climax ends at last with cal ddeAdv ye «.7.A. in 
a way fitted to put the readers deeply to shame. Comp. Chrysostom. 

Ver. 9. Tép] giving the ground of the foregoing wish : For the position 
of us apostles is to my mind such, that to us the cvuBac. would even be a thing 
very desirable! It is precisely the reverse of that !— In doxé we have a pal- 
pable point in the statement. Comp. on vii. 40. Without ér following, 
see in Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 138. — uae trove az.] does not refer sim- 
ply to Paul (Calvin and others, including Schrader and Olshausen), which 
is forbidden by rove az., but to the apostles generally. The designation rove 
_aroot. is added by way of contrast to their position, in which they, instead 
of being at all privileged as apostles, were éoyato.. Observe further, how 
in this passage, on to ver. 13, Paul paints his picture of the apostles in ¢ol- 
ours drawn from his own personal experience. — éoydrove] Predicate : as 
homines infimae sortis. Comp. Mark ix. 35; Alciphr. iii. 43 ; Dio Cassius, 
xlii. 5; Dem. 346, pen. It is joined with azocr. by Erasmus, Castalio, 
Beza, and others, including Semler and Pott: ‘‘Deus nos, qui postremi 
apostoli facti fuimus, tamquam é@av. oculis alior. sistit” (Pott), But in 
that case we should require to have rove az. rove éoy., or at least tod¢ écy. 
an., because éoyv. would necessarily be the emphatic word ; and at any rate, 
looked at generally, this would give us an inappropriate and unhistorical 
contrast between the experiences of the later apostles and those of the first. 
— arédevEev| not : fecit, reddidit, but : He has set us forth, presented us as last, 


98 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


caused us to appear as such before the eyes of the world (see the following 
Oéatpov «.7.2.). Comp. 2 Thess. 11. 4; Plat. Conv. p. 179 C; Dem. 687. 
11; Xen. Oec. v. 10 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 C. — é¢ éxifavar. | 
as men condemned to death, so that we appear as such. How true in view of 
their constant exposure to deadly perils! Comp. xv. 30 f. ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 
ff. Tertullian’s rendering (de pudic. 14): ‘‘veluti bestiarios,’> although 
adopted by Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Schrader, 
and others, is an arbitrary limitation of the meaning. The correct expla- 
nation is given by Chrysostom and Theophylact. Comp. Dion. Hal. vii. 35. 
— ér Oéatpov éyev. k.7.A.] serves to make good the statement from doxé to 
éxiOav. ; hence it is a mistake to write 6, rc and connect it with @éarp., as 
Hofmann conjectures should be done (‘‘ which spectacle we have in truth 
become to the world”). The meaning is: seeing that we have become a spec- 
tacle, etc. Oéarpov is here like 6éa or Oéaza, as Aesch. Dial. Socr. iii. 20 ; 
Ach. Tat. I. p. 55. Comp. @earpifecba:, Heb. x. 33 ; éxPearpitec@at, Polyb. iii. 
91. 10, v. 15. 2. — kai ayy. k. avOp.] specializes the 76 dou: to the whole 
world, both angels and men. The inhabitants of heaven and of earth gaze 
upon our hardships and persecutions as on a spectacle. — The word dyyeAor in 
the N. T., standing absolutely, is never used of the good and bad angels taken 
together (this against Zeger, Bengel, Olshausen, a/.), nor of the bad alone 
(this against Vatablus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Flatt 
and Neander), but always only of the angels kar’ éoyfv, 2.e. of the good 
angels (comp. on Rom. viii. 38). Where it refers to the bad angels, it 
always has some addition defining it so (Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7; 2 
Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6). Hahn’s objection is a trifling one (Theol. d. N. T. I. 
p. 261) : that the angelic world generally is meant ; comp. also Hofmann. 
Yes, but the evil angels are no longer therein ; see on Eph. ii. 2. Some 
have thought that we must bring in the bad angels, because 6éarpov involves 
the idea : a subject of mirth and mockery. But this is purely arbitrary. The 
particular interest felt by the spectators in the drama of the apostolic fort- 
unes might be very various, and even opposite in its nature ; it is not here 
taken into consideration at all. Theodoret says well: zaow ei¢ Yewpiav 
mpokertat TA HuéeTepa’ GyyeAor péev yap THv qustépav avdpiav Bavudlovor, THv dé 
avdporuv ol uev EGHdovTat Toi HueTépoig TASHA, oi OE Cvvadyovor mév, EXaLdvaL 
6 ov« toybovoww. The way in which the angels come in here, therefore, must 
not be regarded as simply proverbial and figurative (Baur). (x) 

Ver. 10. What very different sort of people ye are from ws / — pwpot did X. } 
for, because we concern ourselves about nothing else save Christ the cruci- 
fied, are bent on knowing Him only, and on having nothing to do with the 
world’s wisdom (comp. ii. 2), we are foolish, weak-minded men, for Christ’s 
sake. Comp. i. 18, 25. — @péviuo év X.] Wise men are ye in your connection 
with Christ, sagacious, enlightened Christians! Observe, that Paul could 
not write again dd X. ; the Christian pseudo-wisdom had other motives. 
The nature of the irony, ‘‘ plena aculeis” (Calvin), with which he scourges 
the worldly state of things at Corinth, does not allow us to supply anything 
else here but éovév and éoré. —dadeveic] weak and powerless. For in trem- 
bling and humility they came forward, making little of human agency, 


CHAP. Iv., 11-18. 99 


trusting for all success to the simple word of Christ. Ye, on the contrary, 
are loyupot, men of power, able to take up an imposing attitude and to carry 
through great things. Comp. ii. 3; 2 Cor. xiii. 2 ff., x. 10. By an arbi- 
trary limitation, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius refer dao. 
to their sufferings: ‘‘Quia multa mala patimur, nec resistimus quod est 
infirmitatis,” and icy. : ‘‘ Mala, si qua occurrunt, facile repellitis,” Estius. 
— évdofor| celebrated, highly honoured personages ; atyior: unhonoured, despised, 
Matt. xiii. 57 ; Hom. J7..i. 516 ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 774 B, Huthyd. p. 281 
C. —In the last clause the jirst person is the subject of the sarcastic an- 
tithesis, because Paul means now to speak at more length regarding the 
apostles. 

Vv. 11-18. Down to the present hour this despised condition of ours 
continues uninterruptedly, manifesting itself also (xa/) in all manner of pri- 
vations, sufferings, and humiliations. — The assumption that we are not to 
understand this aypi rc apt: pac, as also éw¢ dpte in ver. 13,’ in a strictly 
literal sense, is rash, seeing that, even apart from the fact that we have no 
other means of knowing the precise position of Paul at that time (comp. 2 
Cor. xi. 27), he is speaking here not of himself alone, but of the position of 
the apostles in general. — yuuvyrebouer| i.e. we lack necessary raiment. Comp. 
on yuuvéc in Matt. xxv. 36 ; Jas. 11. 153; and Theile in loc. The verb, as 
used both in this sense and of being lightly armed, belongs to the later 
Greek. The form yomwurebouev (Lachmann and Tischendorf), although 
vouched for by a majority of the codd., is nothing but an ancient clerical 
error ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lahem. p. 21. — xodadgif.] quite literally : 
we are beaten with fists. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Pet. 11. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 7. 
A concrete representation of rude maltreatment in general. — dorarovpev] we 
are unsettled, have no abiding dwelling-place, Rufinus, Hp. 20. Theo- 
phylact : Aavvdueda, debyouev. — koriOuev x.t.A.] we toil hard, working with 
our own hands. Comp. as regards Paul, ix. 6 ff. ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff. ; 1 Thess. 
ii. 9 ff. ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xx. 34; and who is in a position to deny 
that others of the apostles too acted in the same way ? Paul includes this 
among the elements of their despised condition, which he adduces,; and 
he had a right to do so, for it was such in the eyes of the world, which 
could not and would not recognize and honour so noble a self-denial. — 
Aowop. evAoy. k.t.A.]| The picture of the ignominious condition of the apos- 
tles is continued, and its effect heightened by the contrast of their demean- 
our. We are so utterly empty and void of all honour with others, that as 
respects those who revile (insult, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 294), per- 
secute, and slander us (dvogmu., see the critical remarks, and comp. 1 Macc. 
vii. 41 ; Aesch. Ag. 1078; Soph. #7. 1182; Eur. Heracl. 600), we do not 
in any wise defend ourselves or seek vengeance against them (as men do 
who have honour to vindicate and maintain) ; but, on the contrary, wish 
good to our revilers, remain quiet and patient towards our persecutors, and 


1 The two expressions are synonymous; tained by Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 ff., is 
hence, too, this passage is a proof that the erroneous. See Fritzsche, ad Lom. I. p. 
distinction between dyxpc and pwéxpr, main- 308 ff. ; 


100 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

give beseeching words to our slanderers.’. Whether Paul says this in remem- 
brance of the words of Jesus in Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27 f., which became 
known to him by tradition (Riickert and others), is very dubious, consider- 
ing the difference of expression ; but the disposition required by Jesus lived 
in him. — oc wepixaddpuara x.7.A.| Delineation, as a whole, of the condition 
hitherto—from ver. 11 onwards—sketched in single traits : We have become 
as out-sweepings of the world, i.e. our experience has become such, as though 
we were the most utterly worthless of existing things, like dirt which men 
have swept off from the face of the world. The kécyo¢ is the world of men 
(Rom. iil. 6, v. 12), corresponding to the zavtwv which follows. TepixéSapya 
(from reprxadaipw, to cleanse round about, on every side) means qguisquiliae, 
what one removes by cleansing, both in a literal sense and figuratively, like 
our offscourings, scum (Arrian. Diss. Hpict. iii. 22. 78). The simple xadapua 
is more common ; and it especially is often found in this figurative sense in 
Demosthenes and later writers (see Wetstein, Loesner, Odss. p. 276 f. ; comp. 
also Kiihner, II. p. 26). With this rendering Erasmus, H. Stephanus, 
Beza, Estius, and others, including, Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
Neander, Hofmann, are content, following Theodoret, Theophylact, and 
Oecumenius. Katapyata, however, is likewise used to denote those who, 
in times of plague and other public calamities, were offered up to expiate the 
wrath of the gods (see Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 454 ; Bos, Ewercitatt. p. 125 ff. ; 
Munth. Obss. e Diod. p. 821 f.), and in Prov. xxi. 18, repixdSapya corre- 
sponds to the Hebrew 123, while repicadapudc, too, in Plato, Legg. vii. p. 
815 C, means lustratio, and repixadapthpiov in Hesychius (sub voce Yedyuara), 
a sacrifice for purification ; and, on these grounds, Luther and many others 
(among them Pott, Olshausen, Osiander) assume that Paul refers here to 
that Greek sacrificial custom (see especially Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 155), 
and means by repixad. expiatory sacrifices,—the idea of ‘‘ reprobate, utterly 
worthless men” being at the same time essentially involved, inasmuch as 
such men were taken for sacrifices of that nature (see Bos and Grotius). 
According to this view, the sense would be: ‘‘contemnimur ut homines, 
qui ad iram Deorum ab omnibus hominibus avertendam sacrificio offerun- 
tur,’ Pott ; and Olshausen asserts, in spite of the dc, that Paul ascribes a 
certain power even to his sufferings. Now the current and constant word 
for the expiatory offering is ka9apua (not repixadapua);* but, even supposing 
that Paul had conceived zepixaddpuata as piacula, he would in that case 
have again used the plural repifuata in the next clause, for repipyjua is sy- 
nonymous with rep:xaSapua, and each individual would be a piaculum. If, 
on the other hand, he conceived repixaSdpyara as offscourings, castings away, 
he could very suitably interchange this phrase afterwards with the collect- 


1 Tlapaxadodpev: being slandered, we en- 
treat. See regarding mapaxad., to entreat, 
Bleek on Hed. II. 1, p. 454 ff. Theophylact 
puts it happily : mpaorépots Adyots Kal madak- 
TiKols ametBoueda, Comp. Acts xvi. 39. Gro- 
tius explains it: Deum pro ipsis precamur. 
But Deum and pro ipsis are unwarrantably 
inserted on the ground of Matt. v. 10, 44. 


Compare rather 2 Macc. xiii. 23: tovs "Iovda- 
tous mapexadecev, he gave good words to the 
Jews. 

2 Hence Valckenaer holds the reading of 
G, min., worepet cadapuara, to be the true 
one, because Paul ‘‘ritus Graecos noverat 
et linguam.”’ 


CHAP. IV.," 14; 15. 191 


ive singular (rubbish). —xdvtov repip.] The refuse of all. The emphasis 
lies on ravtwv, and dc is to be supplied again before it. Tepidywa (what is 
removed by wiping) being substantially the same in meaning with sep:- 
Kadapua (see Photius, s.v., Tob. v.18, and Fritzsche in Jloc.), has been as 
variously interpreted by the commentators. —éw¢e apr] belongs to éyevis., 
and repeats with emphatic force at the close of the description the selfsame 
thought with which it had began in ver. 11.—The torrent is at an end ; 
now again we have the gentle stream of fatherly kindness, which, however, 
in ver. 18 once more swells into sternness and threatening. Observe how 
Paul at this point abandons the comprehensive plural form (jjueic), in order 
now at the close of the section to make his readers feel again, in the most 
impressive way, that personal relation of his to them, which he, as being 
the founder of the church, was entitled in truth to urge on their attention, 
despite of all the party-strife which had crept in. 

Vv. 14-21. Receive this censure (from ver. 7 onwards) not as meant to put 
you utterly to shame, but as an admonition from your spiritual father, whom ye 
ought to copy (vv.14-16), for which cause I have also sent Timothy to you (ver. 
17). But I—this by way of warning to those who are puffed up !—hope soon to 
come to you myself ; am Ito come to punish, or in gentleness (vv. 18-21) ? 

Ver. 14. Ov« évtpéxav| The common interpretation is the correct one: 
not putting you to shame, not in such a way as to shame you, write I this 
(vv. 8-13). The participle, however, is not the same as an éfinitive, but the 
meaning is: I shame you not by what Iam now writing to you. See Heind. 
ad Phaed. p. 249 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 D; Matthiae, p. 
1289. Riickert prefers keeping to the general sense of humbling, moving 
greatly ; but why should we, when we have in 2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus ii. 8, 
1 Cor. vi. 5, xv. 34, the perfectly distinctive Pauline notion of the word ? 
Comp. also Diog. L. ii. 29; Ael. V. H. iii. 17. And just because Paul 
feels the shaming element in his rebuke for the Corinthians, does he point 
out, so as to further the moral effect of his bitter words, what according to 
his idea his rebuke essentially is, not a putting to shame, but a fatherly ad- 
monition. Bengel says well: ‘‘ Exquisita érvepareia . . . Saepe quendam 
quasi leporem apostolus salva gravitate apostolica adhibet.” — vovderd| The 
kindly intention of the admonition is not conveyed in the word by itself (see 
on Eph. vi. 4, and comp. e.g. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 560 A: vovd_erotytur re 
Kat Kkaxilévtwv, Legg. ix. p. 879 D ; Dem. 798. 19, al.), but in the context. 
Comp. Acts xx. 31. Plato, Huthyd. p. 284 E: vovdeté o° éraipov. The 
construction is varied so as to give us not the participle again, but the in- 
dicative (as the opposite of évtpéxur ypddu, taken together), whereby the an- 
tithesis is made independent and so more emphatic. See Hermann, ad 
' Hymn. Hom. p. 125. Kihner, II. p. 423. 

Ver. 15 justifies the é¢ téxva wov dyar. vovferd. — For suppose ye have ten 
thousand tutors in Christ. On pvpiove,' compare Matt. xviii. 24 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 
19. — Respecting the paedagogi among the Greeks and Romans (comp. }>8, 


1 The distinction drawn by the old gram- without foundation. See Buttmann, avs- 
marians between pvpro. (a numeral proper)  (frhrl. Sprachl. I. p. 284; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
and pwvpio (an indefinitely large number) is II. p. 144. 


102 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


2 Chron. xxvii. 32 ; 2 Kings x.1, 5 ; Esth. ii. 7; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. 
p. 272), who, for the most part slaves, had it in charge to educate and give. 
constant attendance upon boys till they came of age, see Wetstein and 
Hermann, Privatalterth. § 34. 15 ff. The name is here given figuratively to 
the later workers in the church, the zoriGovrec (iil. 6-8), the éroxodopovvrec 
(iii. 10 ff.), in respect of their carrying on its further Christian develop- 
ment, after Paul (its father) had founded it, had given to it Christian life, 
had begotten it spiritually. Since the essential nature of the delineation 
here allowed of no other word alongside of zarépac except raiday., and since, 
moreover, Apollos also was reckoned among the radayéyowc, we are not 
warranted in finding here expressed the idea of «imperious and arrogant lead- 
ership on the part of the heads of parties (Beza, Calvin, and others, including 
Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander). Compare, too, Erasmus : ‘‘ paed- 
agogus saevit pro imperio.” It is not even the inferior love of the later 
teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact) that Paul wishes to make his readers 
sensible of, but only his rights as a father, which can be in no way impaired 
by all who subsequently entered the same field. —aAW ob x. war.] se. Eyere. 
The aaaa after a hypothetical protasis is the at of emphatic contrast, on the 
other hand (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 3 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 11; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 98), and that, too, without a restrictive yé, in the sense 
of at certe ; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 48. — év yap Xpior@ x.7.2.] te. 
Sor in the life-fellowship of Jesus Christ no other than I myself has begotten you, 
through the gospel. Just as év Xpiord, in the first half of the verse, conveys 
the specific distinction of the radayéyoug Eyew 3 So here, and that with the 
emphatic addition of ’Ijoov, it conveys that of the moral generation, which 
has taken place, not out of Christ, but in Him as the element of its being ; 
and dvd tov evayyeA. (comp. 1 Pet. i. 23) is the means whereby this establish- 
ment of their existence in the Christian sphere of life has been brought 
about. In both these respects it differs from physical generation. The 
antithetic emphasis of the éyé forbids us to refer év X. ’I. to the person of 
the apostle: ‘‘in my fellowship with Christ, i.e. as His apostle” (de Wette, 
comp. Grotius, Calovius, Flatt, al.). — éyévyyca] Comp. ver. 17 ; Philem. 10 ; 
Gal. iv. 19. Sanhedr. f. 19. 2: ‘‘ Quicunque filium socii sui docet legem, 
ad eum scriptura refert, tanquam si eum genuisset.” 

Ver. 16. Ody] since I am your father. — pu. pu. yiv.] become imitators of me. 
Paul does not add any more precise definition as to the matter (‘in cwra tu- 
tandae in ecclesia tum unitatis tum sanctitatis,” Grotius thinks, but without 
warrant in the context); but the connection of the passage, after vv. 6-13, 
leaves no room for doubt that he has in view the discarding of conceit and 
self-seeking, and the putting on of humility and self-denial. — As‘ regards 
the phrase piu. yiv., comp. xi. 1; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14 ; Eph. v. 1; Phil. - 
iii. 17 ; and as regards the idea, Xen. Mem. i. 6. 3: of diddoxador tobg wabyrag 
puuntac gavTov arodeckvbovary. 

Ver. 17. Acad rovro] namely, in order to further among you this state of 
things meant by piu. uw. yiv. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Piscator, Riickert, 
Maier, make it refer to ver. 15: ‘‘on this ground, because I am your 
father.” But that would convert ver. 16, quite arbitrarily, into a strange 


CHAP. IV., 18. 103 


parenthetical interpolation. — éreupa iu. Tiyu.] See Introd. § 2. He had 
already started upon his journey, but was not to arrive until after this 
Epistle had reached Corinth, xvi. 10 ; hence he must not be regarded as 
the bearer of it (Bleek). —rékvov ov] comp. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18 ; 2 Tim. i. 2. 
The father sends to his children (ver. 14 f.) their brother, specially dear 
and faithful to himself, in whom, therefore, they too may have full trust. 
From the quite definite reference of récva in ver. 14, comp. ver. 15, we are 
warranted in assuming with confidence that Timothy had been converted by 
Paul; his conversion, since in all likelihood he was from Lystra (see on Acts 
xvi. 1), being probably comprised in the statement in Acts xiv. 6, 7; for 
in Acts xvi. 1 he is already a Christian. —év Kvupiw] specifies the character- 
istic relation in which Timothy is his beloved and faithful child (comp. 
Eph. vi. 21); for apart from the fellowship in faith and life with Christ, 
there is no relationship of father and son subsisting between Paul and Tim- 
othy at all. The expression is therefore not essentially different from év 
mioret, 1 Tim. i. 2. Comp. i. 3. —dvayrjcer] for the Corinthians seemed to 
have forgotten it.'—rad¢ ddob¢ uov tac év X.] 4.¢. the paths, which I tread in 
Christ (as my sphere of activity), i.e. in the service of Christ. The aim in 
view (dca rovro) is to lead them to imitate the apostle by reminding them of 
‘the whole way and manner, in which he conducted himself in his calling alike 
personally and relatively ; for must not the recalling of that conduct vindi- 
cate his character, so much misunderstood and depreciated in Corinth, and 
place it in such a light as would show it to be worthy of imitation ? more 
especially in respect of his self-denial and humility, so far removed from the 
arrogance and self-seeking of the Corinthians. — xa6éc] is commonly taken as 
defining more precisely what has been already stated in a general way, as &¢ 
does in Rom. xi. 2, Luke xxiv. 20, Thuc. i. 1, and frequently elsewhere. 
See Bornemann in Lue. p. 141. But xaéd¢ means sicut (Vulgate), like the 
classical xafa or kabarep : even as, in such fashion, as.? We must therefore 
abide by the meaning of the word, and interpret : he will recall to your 
memories my official conduct in such fashion, as I teach in all places ; i.e. he 
will represent it to you not otherwise than as it is everywhere exemplified in 
me by my capacity as a teacher, not otherwise therefore than in correspond- 
ence with the invariable method in which I discharge the vocation of my 
life, not otherwise, in short, than as it actually is everywhere. In this way 
kalec refers not to the contents of diddoxw, nor to the mode of preaching 
(neither of which would stand in a relation of practical significance to wy. 
p. yiv.), but to the peculiarity of character as a whole, which distinguished 
Paul in his work as a teacher. — avr. év x. éxxA.]| This emphatic state- 
ment, with its double description, gives additional weight to the example 
to be imitated. Comp. Acts xvii. 30, xxi. 28. 

Vy. 18. As though now I were not coming to you, some are puffed up. It is 


1 That Paul does not use é:dé£e, to avoid avTémtat yap éyeyovercay THS amogTOALKTS 
giving offence, because Timothy was still apeTyS. 
young (Chrysostom, Theophylact), is an 2 Billroth renders it rightly : eodem modo, 
imagination pure and simple. Theodoret quo, but inserts quite unwarrantably an 
says aptly: Ajdnv 5é a’rav Oo Adyos KatTnyopet* ipse after the quo. 


104 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


likely that these boasters, who belonged more probably to the Apollonians 
than to the Christ-party (ver. 19 f.), believed and affirmed that the apostle 
had not the courage to appear againin Corinth (2 Cor. x.1); and itis to pre- 
vent their being strengthened in their delusion by the mission of Timothy 
that Paul now adds these remarks, vv. 18-20. Hence we are not to make 
the new section begin here (Tertullian and Theodoret referred édvo. rive¢ 
even to the incestuous person, v. 1, and Theophylact makes it include a 
reference to him); on the contrary, it breaks upon us suddenly, like a 
thunderstorm, in v. 1.— Upon dé as the fourth word in a sentence, see 
Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 699]. — dc, as, denotes: on the assumption that ; see 
Matthiae, p. 1820. It introduces the ground of the é¢vo.d0. from the point 
of view of those that were puffed up. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 374 ; Lobeck, 
ad Soph, Aj. 281. —épyou.| not for éAevoouévov (Flatt), but indicative of the 
subsisting relation. ‘‘ Paul is not coming” was their conception, and this 
made them bold and boastful ; @cAapyiac yap Td éyxAnua ty épnuia Tov didacKdAov 
ei¢ arévoav Kexpyjo0a, Chrysostom. — riwéc¢] as in xy. 12. 

Ver. 19. ’EAeboouas dé] the contrast emphatically put first : come, however, 
I will. —rayéwc| Comp. Phil. ii. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 9. As to how long he 
thought of still remaining in Ephesus, see xvi. 8. —6 Képioc] to be under- 
stood not of Christ, but of God.’ Sce the critical remarks on Rom. xv. 82. 
Comp. Rom. i. 10; Jas. iv. 15. —yvdécoua] what and how the boasters speak 
(rév Adyov), Paul will, on his approaching visit, leave wholly without notice ; 
but as regards the amount of energy put forth by them in producing results 
for the kingdom of God, of that he will take knowledge. —7v dbvau. | namely, 
their power of working for the advancement of the Baor. r. Oecd, ver. 20. 
To explain it as referring to the power of miracles (Chrysostom, Theophylact ; 
not Grotius), or to the power of their virtues (Theodoret, Pelagius, Justin), is 
contrary to the context. Comp. what Paul says of himself in 1 Thess. i. 5. 
This practically effective might, which has for its primary condition the 
true power of the Spirit (of which de Wette understands it ; we may recall 
Paul himself, Luther, etc.), was what the boasters seemed to have, but they - 
let the matter rest at words, which were altogether lacking in the strength 
to effect anything. How wholly otherwise it was with Paul himself ! 
Comp. ii. 43; 2 Cor. vi. 7. 

Ver. 20. Justification of the yrécoua: ob tiv Adyov x.7.A. by an axiom. — éy 
Aéyw and év dvvduec describe wherein the BaoAcia has its causal basis ; it has 
the condition of its existence not in speech, but in power (see on ver. 19). 
Comp. on ii. 5.. The Baovreia rod Ocov, again, is not here, as it never is else- 
where (see on Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10), and in particular never in Paul’s writings 
(neither in this passage nor in Rom. xiv. 7; Col. i. 13, iv. 11 ; see on these 
verses), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense (Neander : 
‘‘the fellowship of the divine life, which is brought about by fellowship 
with the Redeemer’), but the Messianic kingdom, in which, at its expected 
(speedy) manifestation, those only can become members who are truly 


1 [But as the Apostle so constantly uses suppose a reference to the will of Christ.— 
this word as a distinctive title of theSon T. W.C.] 
(cf. vy. 4, 5), it seems more natural here to 


CHAP. IV., 2l. 105 


believing and truly sanctified (Col. iii. 3f.; Phil. iv. 18-21 ; Eph. v. 5, 
al.). (u) But faith and holy living are not established by high-soaring 
speech (not by ta év toi¢g Adyoue gavtdcpata, Plat. Soph. p. 234 E), but by 
divauic, Which is able effectively to procure gain for the kingdom (Col. i. 
28 f.; 1 Thess. i. 5; 1 Cor. ix. 19ff. ; 2 Cor. x. 4 f.). 

Ver. 21. As the conclusion of the entire section, we have here another 
warning useful for the readers as a whole, indicating to them the practical 
application which they generally were to make of the assurance of his 
speedy coming. Lachmann, followed by Hofmann (after Oecumenius, 
Cajetanus, Beza, Calvin), begins the new section with ver. 21. But this 
appears hardly admissible, since chap. v. 1 commences without any con- 
nective particle (such as aad, or dé, or ydp),’ and since, too, in v. 1 ff. there 
is no further reference to the speedy arrival of the apostle. — 7] in the sense 
of zérepov. Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 52D, and Stallbaum in loc. He fears the 
first, and wishes the second. ‘‘Una quidem charitas est, sed diversa in di- 
versis operatur,” Augustine. — év pa8d@] witha rod ; but this is no Hebraism, 
for év denotesin pure Greek the being provided with. Heb. ix. 25; 1 John 
v. 6. See Matthiae, p. 1340; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 284 [E. T. 330]. 
Comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 4: év 2i@~, armed with astone. Lucian, D. WM. xxiii. 
3: Kabixduevoc év tH PaBdm. Themeaning of the figurative phrase, borrowed 
as it is from the relation of father, is: év xoAdoe, év tiuwpia, Chrysostom, — 
éi00| am I to come? See Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 356]. Chrysostom puts it 
happily: év tyiv ro mpaypa Keira. — rveipati te tpaor.| not: with ‘‘a gentle 
spirit” (Luther, and most interpreters), so that rvev~a would be the subjec- 
tive principle which should dispose the inner life to this quality ; but: with 
the Spirit of gentleness, so that mvevua is to be understood, with Chrysostom 
and Theophylact, of the Holy Spirit ; and xpaor. denotes that specific effect 
of this rvetwa (Gal. v. 22) which from the context is brought peculiarly into 
view. So in all the passages of the N. T. where rveiua, meaning the Holy 
Spirit, is joined with the genitive of an abstract noun ; andin each of these 
cases the connection has indicated which effect of the Spirit was to be 
named. Hence He is called rveiya tic adAnbeiag (John xv. 26, xvi. 138; 
1 John iv. 6), viobeciag (Rom. viii. 15), rH¢ riotewe (2 Cor. iv. 13), codiag (Eph. 
1. 17), dvvauewc x.t.2. (2 Tim. i. 7), just according as the one or other effect 
of His working is exhibited by the context as characteristic of Him. Re- 
specting the present passage, comp. vi. 1. It is to be observed, moreover, 
that the apostolic rod of discipline too is wielded in the power of the 
Holy Spirit, so that the selfsame Spirit works as a Spirit of gentleness 
and of corrective severity : gor: yap tvevpa rpadtytog Kai rvEevpa avotnpdtyTos, 
Chrysostom. Comp. on Luke ix. 55. — Instead of the form rpaédryc, Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf have, in every passage in which it occurs in Paul’s 
writings, the later zpairyce (except that in Gal. vi. 1 Lachmann retains 
mpaotyc ; see regarding both, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 403 f.). The change is 
justified by weighty testimony, especially that of A BC (although they are 


1 For to regard v.1 as an answer which inview of ri dédeTe alone, is not even logi- 
Paul gives to himse/f unto his own question, cally practicable. 
as Hofmann does, is a forced device, which, 


\ 


106 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


not unanimous in the case of all the passages). In the other places in which 
it is found, Jas. i. 21, ili. 13, 1 Pet. iii. 15, zpairy¢ is undoubtedly the true 
reading. 


Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. 


(3) Paul's irony. Ver. 8. 


The natural force of this verse is not to be denied or evaded, As Calvin 
says, the Apostle, after seriously and without figures of speech repressing the 
vain confidence of the Corinthians, proceeds ironically to deride them. Nor 
is this the only place in Scripture where such language occurs. It is to be 
found in the Old Testament (1 Kings xviii. 27, Job xii. 1, etc.), and also in the 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xi. 19, 20). And experience seems to show 
that there are occasions when no other form of speech will answer, and yet of 
course this is not to be lightly assumed. The Bible gives no warrant for a 
continuous or even prevailing tone of irony or satire. As Burke said of another 
matter, an extreme medicine must not be turned into one’s daily bread. Per- 
haps the rule laid down by Hodge (in loc.) is sufficient to answer the purpose. 
‘Tf the thing assailed be both wicked and foolish, and if the motive be, not 
the desire 'to give pain, but to convince and convert,’’ the use of these danger- 
ous weapons is justifiable. 


(x) The spectacle to the universe, Ver. 9. 


The imagery in this striking verse is evidently drawn from the games in the 
amphitheatre, so-familiar to the Roman world. The phrase “appointed to 
death” seems naturally to suggest the gladiators who came out into the arena 
and saluted the ruler of the spectacle, calling themselves morituri, about to 
die. In the writer’s view, he and his fellow-apostles were led forth, not sim- 
ply before the gaze of the thousands or tens of thousands gathered under the 
open skyina huge structure of wood or stone, but upon the world’s broad 
stage, where all created beings, from men up to angels, gaze with wonder upon 
the dreadful death-struggle, while the selfish Corinthians sat by, unconcerned 
and unmoved at the awful spectacle. Stanley quotes Seneca’s description 
(Provid. iii.) of the wise man struggling with fate : ‘‘ Ecce spectaculum dignum 
ad quod respiciat intentus operi suo Deus.” Butthe Apostle represents God 
as the One who appointed the spectacle, and all other beings as lookers-on in 
wonder and sympathy. 


(x) The ‘‘ Kingdom of God.” Ver. 20. 


The author’s restriction of this term to the Messianic Parousia is one of the 
few peculiarities (another is his insisting that ive must always be construed as 
telic, in order that) which are. a drawback to his general excellence. The term 
here may just as well denote the existing church as its final manifestation in 
the great day ; nay, it should rather have that meaning, to bring out the full 
force of the Apostle’s argument. The best rebuke of the offensive inflation of 
his adversaries, who boasted instead of working, was to assure them that the 
present administration of God’s cause in the earth was not in profession only, 
but attended with divine power. ‘That such would be the case hereafter they 
might easily admit, but what was needed was to render them sensible of its 
divine efficacy now and here. 


CHAP. VY. 107 


CHAPTER YV. 


Ver. 1. After Z0veow Elz. has évoudferar, which is defended by Matthaci and 
Reiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, perhaps from 
Eph. v. 3. Equally decisive is the evidence against ééap09, ver. 2 (Elz.). From 
ver. 13. — Ver. 2. royoac] Riick. and Tisch. read mpagac, which Griesb. too, 

«recommended, with AC &, min. Or.? Manes (in Epiph.), Epiph. Bas. The 
external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase zoveiv 
épyov was very familiar to the transcribers fromthe N. T. ; hence rpdéac should 
have the preference. — Ver. 3. axdv] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have o¢ az., against A 
B C D* &, min. and several vss. and Fathers. According to the analogy of the 
o¢ tapov which follows, é¢ (as embracing the whole drdv . . . mvevu.) was first 
of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — Ver. 4. ’Ijood alone 
(without Xpiorov) is the reading in both cases of A B D, Aeth. Clar. Lucit., and, 
as regards the second, of several other vss. and Fathers. So also Lachm. Riick. 
and Tisch. Rightly ; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the 
addition of Xprorov. — Ver. 5. tod Kupiovd ’Ijoot] So also 8. Riickert reads tod 
Kup. 7uav 71, Xpiorov, with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but 
probably taken from i. 8. Lachm. brackets judy ’I. X.; for B, Or, (thrice) 
Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply tod Kupiov. So 
Tisch. But since ’Ijood occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and 
since their discrepancies concern only 7uav and Xpuioroi, the Rec. tod Kupiov 
"Incov should be retained ; for ’Ijcot might very easily be overlooked, espe- 
cially where four words,.one after another, end in OY, — Ver. 6. Guuoi] The 
various readings JoAoi (D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and @eipec 
(Lat. in Cerular. ; corrumpit: Vulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations. 
— Ver. 7. After éxxafdp, Elz. has odv, against a great preponderance of evidence. 
A connective addition, as are also «ai before ovin ver. 10, and xai before éfap. 
in ver. 13. After 7uov Elz. and Scholz read izép fudv, contrary to decisive tes- 
timony. An inappropriate (for the apostle is speaking only of the death of 
Christ in itself, see Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 161 ff.) dogmatic gloss. — Ver. 10 7 
dp.| kat dp. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm. 
Rick. and Tisch.) ; 7 was mechanically taken up from the context. — Ver. 11. 
Instead of 7 before répv. Elz. has 7, contrary to Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Iv. 
Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min. The 7, which occurs in 
B** D &, came in mechanically from the succeeding context. — Ver. 12. xa/] is 
wanting in ABCFG &, min. and several vss. and Fathers (suspected by 
Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Riick.) ; the authorities which omit it are so 
decisive, that it must be regarded as an addition in favour of the apostolic 
power of discipline as respects those that are within. — Ver. 13. éfapeire] éSdpare, 
approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., has perfectly con- 
clusive evidence in its favour. The former reading has arisen from Deut. xxiv. 
7, a passage which has also given origin to the weakly-attested «ai before éSap, 
in Elz, 


108 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Vv. 1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in 
the church. 


Ver. 1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note 
of transition, but after the closing words of iv. 21 with all the more 
telling force, the discourse falls with severity at once upon another deep- 
seated evil in the church. — éAwc¢] means simply in general, in universum, as 
in vi. 7, xv. 29, Matt. v. 34, and in Greek writers ; it belongs to dxotera:, so 
that to the general expression Awe axoberar ropv. there corresponds the par- 
ticularexai to.abTy ropv., 8c. axoverat. The latter, however, is something worse 
than the former, hence the kai is intensive (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134 ; 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147) : One hears generally (speaking broadly) of forni- 
cation among you, and even of such fornication one hears among you, as is not 
Sound among the heathen themselves. 'To render it certainly (so as to indicate 
that it is no dubius rumor, sed res manifesta ; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, 
Estius, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, al.) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is 
against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or 
omnino (Vulgate), but neither wbique nor certainly.* Riickert thinks that it 
assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be. 
supplied after iv. 21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity ; and that Paul 
would more fittingly have written yotv. Thisis arbitrary, and even in point 
of logic doubly incorrect, because 6Aw¢ here introduces the report of a quite 
special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization ; and 
because, if the restrictive your would have been better in this passage, Paul 
in using the generalizing 6Awc must have expressed himself dlogically. — év 
ipiv| not : as occurring among you (comp. Ewald), for it is a defining state- 
ment which belongs to dkotera ; but: one hears talk among you of fornica- 
tion, one comes to hear of it in your community. Paul expresses the state 
of things as it was perhaps made known to him by Chloe’s people (i. 11) or 
others who came from Corinth, and spoke to him in some such way as this : 
In the Corinthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc. ; such 
things as these one is forced to hear of there !— év roi¢ v.| det and Tov 
éOvixov dvediler Toig meotoic, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among 
the Jews: Lev. xvii. 8; Deut. xxii. 30; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301; 
Michaelis, Mos. R. II. p. 206 ; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 766 f. The instances 
of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Odss. I. p. 184) were 
exceptions contrary to law (see Elsner, p. 90 ; Wetstein and Pott in loc.), and 
abhorred (Wetstein, /.¢.).2— yuvaixa tov rarpéc] te. IS NW, stepmother, 
Lev. xviii. 8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was, 
no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Lev. xviii. 8 that Paul 
chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation pyrpu:d), 
Gote TOAA® yaherOrepov TAREat, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual 
arrangement of the words, too, yuvaikd twa tov ratpéc, puts an emphasis of 
ignominy upon yuvaica. — éyew] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Riickert, 
Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage 

1 [The R. V. gives the sensehappilybythe asacrime incredible, and, with the excep- 


term ‘‘actually.”—T. W. C.] tion of the case he is speaking of, unheard 
2 (Cicero (pro Cluentio, 5, 6) mentions it of.—T. W. C.] 


BELA. ‘Ve 5 yee 109 


(Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Cor. vii. 12, Maier) or in coneubinage 
(Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius 3 Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, 
Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact 
that éy# is never used in the N. T. in such a sense as that of the well-known 
éyw Aaida (Diog. Laert. ii. 75 ; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or ‘‘ quis hert Chrysi- 
dem habuit ?” (Terent. Andr.i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage? 
(Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 28; Mark vi. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 2, 29. Comp. 1 Macc. xi. 
 oebom 0d, 1¥.069.;°Herod, ii. 81 ;.Thuc. 11. 29. 1; Xen, Oyr. i. 5. 4; 
Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef.; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 121) ; but further, 
and more especially, the use of the past tenses rovgoac, ver. 2, and Katepyaca- 
pevov, ver. 3, to designate the matter, which convey not the conception of 
illicit intercourse, but that of an incestuous marriage having actually taken 
place. Paul ranks this case under the head of zopveia (see on Matt. v. 32) ; 
because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe 
the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further 
intends to designate definitely by x. rovatry wopy. x.t.A. the particular occur- 
rence which is included under this general category. Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, 
should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that ropveia proves the 
case not to have been one of adultery. The objection, again, that Paul does 
not insist upon a divorce, is of no weight ; for he does insist upon excom- 
munication, and, after that had taken place, the criminal marriage—if the 
offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of 
his own accord—would no longer concern the Christians (see vv. 12, 13). 
Another objection: How could the magistrates have tolerated such a 
marriage ? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and 
morally corrupt city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, espe- 
cially on the point of the xopiv6sdfecba (see Introd. § 1) ; and partly by re- 
_membering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or— 
which is more likely—a heathen, having turned Christian, might put for- 
ward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom 
that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions 
of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jebhamoth, f. 982; Michaelis, Hinl. 
§ 178, p. 1221 ; Liibkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether 
or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of 
Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this 
chapter. — As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed 
with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian, 
else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Her former husband was 
_ still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him), 
and was probably a Christian ; 2 Cor. vii. 12. 

Ver. 2. A question suddenly introduced with and, laying bare the incon- 
gruity of this state of things with the attitude previously noticed (see 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f.). —tueic emphatic : Ye, the people among 
whom so disgraceful a thing can occur ; for kody rdvtwv Td éyxAnua yéyove, 


1 Even in John iy. 18, where, however, longs to the passage, as applied to an irreg- 
the word must be kept in the peculiar ular, not real or legal marriage. 
significant mode of expression which be- 


110 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
Chrysostom. — reduc. éoré] What is meant is the spiritual self-conceit 
already censured (iv. 6 ff., 18) regarding the lofty degree of Christian wis- 
dom and perfection in general, which they supposed themselves to have 
reached ; not pride in the incestuous person himself, who is conceived to 
have been a highly-esteemed teacher (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius). 
— éxevdio.| are fallen into distress (penitential mourning), for by reason of 
the fellowship between Christians (comp. xii. 26) édec revOijoat, dtéte ei¢ Td 
Kowvov Tie éxkAnoiac 7 dtaBoan mpoeyopynoev, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. — 
iva ap0f x.7.2.] The design which, according to the apostle’s view, the érev0. 
ought to have had, and the attainment of which would have been its result, 
had it taken place : in order that hemight be removed, etc. It intensifies and 
completes the contrast with their conceited self-assurance, and leads appro- 
priately to the introduction of his own judicial sentence, which comes in, ver. 
8, with éyo wév yap x.7.A. 3 all the less, therefore, is tva apf x.7.2. to be re- 
garded as forming such a judicial utterance (Pott, Hofmann) standing forth 
with imperative independence : Away with him, etc. (see on 2 Cor. viil.7). 
That does not come in until ver. 13. — épyor]| facinus, the nature of which is 
shown by the context. See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 671." 

Ver. 3. ’Eyo uév yap] introduces the independent resolution already ar- 
rived at by himself, and therewith the justification of the ia dp ; for he, 
Paul, for his part, has resolved already to inflict a yet heavier punishment upon 
him. Comp. also Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568] ; the contents of vv. 3-5 corre- 
spond to the iva apy in its connection with kai . . . éxevOfo. The pév solita- 
rium must be taken as meaning: J at least. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
841 f. ; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 159 ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413. —'r6 
avebuatt] Comp. ver. 4: tov éuod mvebpatoc, hence not to be understood, as 
Chrysostom and others hold,’ of the Holy Spirit, against which 76 ocdpate 
also militates, comp. vii. 34 ; Rom. viii. 10 ; Col. ii. 5. — dn kékp. &¢ rapdv]} 
have made up my mind already, as though I were present (personally superin- 
tending your community).? — rv ottw rotto karepy. | belongs to rdpad. Th Sar., 
ver. 5, so that, after the intermediate statements which follow, the object 
of the sentence is taken up again by roy rosovrov in ver. 5 (hune talem in- 
quam), comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2. See Matthiae, p. 1045 ; Schaefer, Melet. p. 84. 
Bengel says happily : ‘‘Graviter swspensa manet et vibrat oratio usque ad 
ver. 5.” Not so happy is Hofmann’s view, that rdv . . . xatepy. belongs to 
Kéxpika a8 an accusative of the object, whereupon rapadotvar k.t.A. 18 then set 
down to a mixing up of two constructions, this being coupled with an inap- 
propriate comparison of Mark xiv. 64. —otrw] after such fashion, in such a 
way. The way and manner thereby referred to as aggravating the offence 
were known to the readers, but are unknown to us. Respecting ofrw in a 


1 [This verse is read as a question in the 
Syriac version and the Greek Fathers, and 
by Canon Evans in Speaker’s Com. The 
sense is the same.—T. W. C.] 

2 So, too, Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
p. 385. ‘ 

3 Were the ws before army the genuine 
reading,—and Hofmann persists in retain- 


ing it as such, notwithstanding that cod. &, 
too, has addedits weight to the side of the 
overwhelming contrary testimony,—this ws 
might be very simply distinguished from 
that which stands before wapév in this way, 
that the first as would mean as, and the 
second as if. 


OUAP, V., 4. lil 


bad sense, see on John xviii. 22, and Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. I. p. 120. Pott 
and Olshausen explain it wrongly : ‘‘licet Christianus sit,” which is not im- 
plied in the text, and would state nothing special, for it was a matter of 
course that the person in question was not a non-Christian. — xarepy. ] has per- 
petrated, more emphatic than zojoac, ver. 2. See on Rom. 1. 27. 

Ver. 4. Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible : either év 
T@ ovdu. belongs to ovvay$. and ov TH dvv. to rapadoitvae (Beza, Justiniani, 
Calovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both be- 
long to ovvay#. (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, 
Riickert), or both belong to rapadotvac (Mosheim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader, 
comp. also Osiander) ; 07 év r. dvéu. belongs to rapadoiva, and ody r. duvdu. 
to the participial clause., Against the second and third of these views, there 
is the fact that the symmetry of the address would be needlessly destroyed 
by bringing in the authority of Christ twice over in the one division, and 
not at all in the other ; against the first, again, there is this, that év 76 dvéu. 
K.7.A., as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Acts ili. 6, 
xvi. 18), links itself more suitably to the sense with rapadotva x.t.4. than 
with ovvay. «.7.2. (to the latter of which Matt. xviii. 20, eic rd év., might 
seem to offer not exactly a parallel, but still a similar representation). 
There remains therefore, as worthy of preference, the fourth method of con- 
necting the words (Luther, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Maier, al. ; Neander 
with hesitation).’ Against this, Hofmann objects that év 76 évéuare x.7.A. 
ought not to have come in until after the participial clause ; but quite under 

a misapprehension, for it is plainly of set purpose, and with all reason and 
_ propriety, that the apostolic sentence bears, so to speak, on its very front the 
seal of his high and plenary authority. —ovvaybéivtwv . . . ’Incow| after yeare 
assembled, and my spirit (note the emphatic r+. éuov), with the power of Jesus 
(‘‘ qui nostram sententiam sua potentia reddet efficacem,” Erasmus, Par- 
aphr.). The substance of the thought, namely, which this whole statement 
sets before us with concrete vividness and solemnity, is the following : I 
have already resolved that ye hold an assembly of the church, in which ye shall 
consider me as present furnished with the power of Christ, and in this assembly 
shall declare: ‘‘ Paul, in the name of Christ, with whose power he is here spir- 
itually in the midst of us, hereby delivers over the incestuous man unto Satan.” 
 Spixng peotov ovvexpétnoe duxaothpiov, Theodoret. — ofv]| denotes in efficient con- 
nection therewith, that is to say, the spirit of the apostle is present in the as- 
sembly, not in virtue of his own independent power (comp. Acts iii. 12), 
but clothed with the authority of Christ, Winer, p. 366 [E. T. 458]. Thus 
the power of Christ is not conceived as the third party in the assembly,—a 
view in behalf of which Matt. xviii. 20, xxviii. 20 are cited ; so Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others, including 
Rickert and Maier.* For Paul bore this power in himself, being as an apos- 


1[So Stanley, Beet, Principal Brown, e¢ —T.W. C.] 
al.—T. W. C.] 3 Chrysostom and Theophylact, however, 
2 [It is a serious objection to this view leave the choice open between the two 
that it would naturally require the preposi- renderings: 7 67:6 Xptoris S¥varar toLtavTyHV 
tion before duvvay.ec to be not ody but ev.  buiv xapw Sodvar, dore Sivacdat TO SiaBdAp 


112 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
tle its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himsclf 
meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but: as being 
present in immanent union with it as Christ’s apostle at the eventual act of 
judgment. It was just as the depositary of this power that he could give 
over the sinner to Satan in the name of the Lord, and be assured that the 
sentence would take effect. According to Hofmann, by ody rt. dv. x.7.A. 
Paul means only to express this, that he would rely upon the aid of the 
power of Christ. Comp. the classic ctv Gevic, deorum ope (Reisig, Enarr. p. 
lxiv. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded, 
after the év 76 évéuare x.7.A. Which has gone before it, would be far too weak. 
Ver. 5. Tov towvrov| the so-constituted, comprises in one word the whole 
abhorrent character’ of the man. Note the similar expression in 2 Cor. ii. 
7. — rapadovvae TH Latava] is—although the phrase may not occur in Jewish 
formulae of excommunication (Lightfoot, Horae, p. 167 ff., but: see Pfaff, 
Orig. jur. eccles, p. 72 ff.) —the characteristic designation of the higher Chris- 
tian grade of excommunication, with which there was essentially joined the or- 
daining in the powerof the apostolic office (not simply the presupposition, as 
Billroth’s rationalizing interpretation has it), that Satan should plague the 
person delivered over to him with corporeal inflictions. Therein consisted the 
difference between this peculiar species of the D1] which had passed over 
from the synagogue to the church, and the simple aipevy éx péoov, ver. 2, 
comp. ver. 13. The latter could be performed by the church itself, whereas 
the rapadotvat T6 Lat. appears in this passage, as in 1 Tim. i. 20, to be 
reserved for the plenary authority of an apostle. It pertained to the apos- 
tolic éovcia, 2 Cor. xiii. 10. Comp. the analogous penal power in the cases 
of Ananias and Elymas, Acts v. 1 ff., xiii. 9 ff. The s¢mple exclusion be- 
longed to the church independently, ver. 2; and the apostle, calls upon 
them in ver. 13 to exercise this right of theirs. To himself, again, in the 
power of Christ, belonged the title and the power to inflict the intensified 
penalty of excommunication, the delivery to Satan, of which, accordingly, 
he does not say that the church ought to execute it, but that he has already 
resolved, etc. Observe, too, that rapadotva: is active; he does not say 
napadobjva, but he himself will do it. There is no reason to doubt the 
fact of this power being the prerogative of the apostleship, as the higher 
authority vested with power to punish? (Lipsius Rechtfertigungsl. p. 181, 
Hofmann) ; comp. also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 873. As regards the 
special assumption, again, that the thought would be complete in itself 
without +6 Yatavg (Hofmann), 1 Tim. i. 20 should have been enough, even 
taken singly, to preclude it ; for, judging from that passage, one might 
rather say that ei¢ dA2e0pov t. capxdg Was obvious of itself. The delivery over 


mapadiddcat, 7 OTL Kal avTOS med VUoY ody TS TYEVMaTL TOD Kuvpiov. Comp. Acts xy. 


Kat’ avTov dépet thy Wadov. Accord- 28. 


ing to Theodoret, Christ is viewed as the 
presiding authority. Had the apostle, how- 
ever, represented Christ to himself as form- 
ing the third in their meeting, he would 
hardly have use so abstract an expression 
(Svvamer), but would haye written at least 


1 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 843. 

2Even if 1 Tim. is not an apostolic 
Epistle, 1 Tim. i. 20 is at all events written 
in the delief that the delivery to Satan was 
effected not by the church, but by the 
apostle. 


ORAP. Vi, 5. T13 
to Satan can only be viewed as an express and declaratory act of relegation 
from Christian fellowship into the power of the dpyov roi kécpov ; not as if 
Satan were but he, ‘‘ through whom the evil-doer should come to experience 
what was destined for him” (Hofmann), which would not imply an exclusion 
from the church at all. Many other expositors, following Chrysostom and 
appealing to the case of Job, find here only the handing over to Satan for 
bodily chastisement,’ and not along with that the excommunication (Lightfoot, 
Bochart, Wolf, al.). But this is against the connection, according to which 
(see vv. 2, 13) the wapad. 76 Yarava cannot belong toa different category 
from the aipew éx uécov. _ At the same time it is not quite identical with it,’ 
not simply a description of the excommunication, (Calvin, Beza, and others, in- 

cluding Semler, Stolz, Schrader, Maier), seeing that the bodily result is 
indicated by ei¢ dAchp. +. cap. as essential and as explaining itself to the 
reader without further interpretation. — cic éAeAp. r. capx.| is that which is 
to be effected by Satan on the man delivered over to him: for behoof of 
destruction of the flesh, i.e. in order that (Kec rovype } véow érépa, Chrysos- 
tom), his sinful fleshly nature, which is turned to account by the indwelling 
power of sin as the work-place of his desires and lusts, might be emptied 
of its energy of sinful life by the pains of bodily sickness, and might in so 
far perish and come to nought.* It is not his céua that is to die, but his 
cdpé (Rom. viii. 13; Col. iii. 5). The reason why the word cdpé is here 
purposely selected, and not the ethically indifferent cdua, was correctly 
discerned by so early an expositor as Chrysostom, although many more 
recent interpreters, such as Riickert, have failed to perceive it. Hofmann 
also takes, in substance, the right view, Schri/ftbeweis, I. p. 462. To make, 
however, as he does (p. 105), the éAe#p. +. caps. the same as diagfeiperas 6 éw 
juav avOpwroc, 2 Cor. iv. 15, accords neither with the real meaning nor with 

_ the ethical relations of the case. .As regards the two telic statements : eic 
dAefp. tr. o. and iva 7d rvedua x.t.2. (Which last expresses the final design of 
the whole measure of the rapadotva x.7.2.), observe that it is with an anti- 

Christian purpose that Satan smites the man delivered over to him with 
bodily misery, but that against his own will this purpose of his is made to 


1So0 also Grotius, who, moreover,—and 
in this Billroth follows him,—rationalizes 
mapadovvat into precari Deum, ut eum tradat. 

2So, too, Theophylact on 1 Tim. Le. 
Comp. Balsamon, ad Can. vii. Basil. p. 938, 
where itis said that we term subjects of 
Satan: of xwpigduevoe amd THs KoLwwvias TOV 
muoto@v, similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia in 


Cram. Cat. p. 92, who explains it of the ez-. 


communication (the result of which is the 
dominion of Satan; and Paul gives the 
name here from that result, in order the 
more to overawe), and then ddredpov capxés : 
Thy Kata Tov TapovTa Bloyv dia THS pmEeTAmeEAELas 
ovytpiByv. Comp. Ambrosiaster, Augustine, 
contr. Parm. iii. 2; Pelagius, Anselm. 

3 The expression: dAedp. 7. capx., is too 
strong and characteristic to allow of its 


being understood merely of the pains of 
repentance breaking the sinful impulses. 
The repentance, too, was, in fact, just as 
likely to have remained lacking as to have 
setin, had it not been for these bodily pains’ 
intervening after the delivery over to Satan 
as a means of humiliation and discipline 
(comp. iva radevdaor, 1 Tim. i. 20,and Huther 
on that verse). Thereby the whole morti- 
jication of the old man was to be brought 
about, inasmuch as the oapé constitutes 
the moral essence of the old man in virtue 
of the power of sin which dwells in it 
(Rom. vii. 18), and which guides and gov- 
erns him. The cdpé is to perish, in order 
that the dikn of 6Aedpos aidvios May not be 
inflicted at the day of judgment (2 Thess. i. 
9; comp. 1 Tim. Vi. 9). 


114 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


serve God’s aim of salvation. —iva td rveipa k.t.A.] in order that his spirit, 
the underlying element of the higher moral life, of the true (wf, may be saved 
(with the Messianic salvation) on the day of the (approaching) Parousia. That 
the coua, again,—in which the cdpé has lost its life, so that it is no longer 
the coua ti¢ capxdc, Col. ii. 11,—should then be glorified, was a thing which 
did not need to be expressly stated to the Christian eschatological conscious- 
ness. See so early an expositor as Chrysostom. Calovius puts it well: 
‘‘Non ergo dividit hominem apostolus, quasi eum partim interire, partim 
servari velit. Nam nec corpus interire potest sine divulsione ab anima, nec 
anima servari absque corporis salute.” Now this Messianic salvation was 
to Paul’s mind not merely a possible thing (Olshausen), but he expected it as 
a result, which, in virtue of the saving power of Christ, could not fail to 
ensue after the slaying of the sinful impulses by the éAe@po¢ rij¢ capxéc in the 
case of the man led by this punishment to conviction of sin and true peni- 
tence. The rapadoivvac t@ Lar. was therefore a paedagogic penal arrange- 
ment, a ‘‘ medicinale remedium” (Calovius), as is shown by the whole scope 
of this passage and 1 Tim. i. 20 (not by the term zapadoiva: itself, as Chrys- 
ostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact maintain, on the ground of Paul’s not 
having written éxdotvar:),—a measure, in connection with which the rveipya 
remained out of Satan’s power and accessible to the gracious influences of 
Christ, inasmuch as it retained the vital principle of faith, which was to 
develop its supremacy just in proportion as the odp§ was destroyed. This 
may suffice to set aside Riickert’s censure of the apostle’s proceeding, on 
the ground that the punishment might easily have led to the utter destruc- 
tion of the sinner, and, moreover, that Paul acted ‘‘ imprudently” (comp. 
Baur, I. p. 335 f., 2d ed.), since he could not have compelled the Corinthi- 
ans to obey him in the matter. He does not, in fact, actually ordain’ the 
apadovva T@ Sat., but says merely that he, for his part, has already resolved 
on this, confining himself, therefore, certainly (against Lipsius and Hof- 
mann) to the threat? in the meantime ; and what he destres for the present 
is just the simple aipew éx péocov (comp. ver. 13), which also was done by 
the majority, as we learn from 2 Cor. ii. 6, and that with the best results ! 
Comp. Bengel on ver. 3. Upon the whole, too, we may believe that Paul 
knew his own powers of apostolic discipline, and may trust him to have 
been satisfied that, to try milder measures first (the omission of which 
Riickert blames as arising from passion), would not with the person con- 
cerned have had the effect aimed at. (m) 

Ver. 6. In face of the necessity for such measures as these—how odious ap- 
pears that of which ye make boast! Rather ought ye to consider that a little 
leaven, etc., and (ver. 7) sweep out the old leaven! Katynua is not the same 
as xabynowc, but : matérics gloriandi (see on Rom, iv. 2) ; and what is meant 


1 Baur, however, is of opinion (Paulus, I. Cor. xii. 12+ 1 Cor) xi 1G; 29iT- 
p. 334) that as it never did come in the in- 2 Hence, too, the idea that the readers 
stance before us to the working of an ac- were to let him know of the day fixed for 
tual apostolic miracle, so neither did sucha the meeting in question (Hofmann), is not 
thing ever take place in any other case. conveyed in the passage, and is, indeed, 


See, on the other hand, Rom. xy. 19; 2 quite alien to its scope. 


CHAP. V.5: 1. 115 


by it is not the incestuous person (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius) as a 
man of high repute for wisdom in Corinth, but the condition of the Corin- 
thians as a Christian church, inasmuch as they boasted themselves of this 
so confidently, while morally it was foul enough and full of shameful abuses! 
aiaypov KAéoc, Eur. Hel. 185.—oi« oidate x.7.4.|] Basis of the admonition 
which follows in ver. 7. The meaning of the proverbial saying (comp. Gal. 
v. 9, and on the figure of the leaven, which is very frequently used else- 
where, and that in different senses, Matt. xiii. 83; Luke xiii. 21; Matt. 
xvi. 6 ; Mark viii. 15 ; Luke xii. 1) is ordinarily defined to be this : that a 
corrupt man corrupts the whole church. But ver. 8 proves that Paul was 
thinking not of persons, but of abstract qualities in connection with Ciny 
and agvua. The meaning, therefore, must be : Know ye not that one scan- 
dal in the church robs the whole church of its moral and Christian character ? 
Comp. also Hofmann. In virtue of their relation as members of a common 
society, all become chargeable with guilt by the toleration among them of 
a single scandalous offence, and their dyidr7c¢ is gone ! 

Ver. 7. ’Exxafdpate trav xara. Cou] From what has been already said, the 
meaning apart from the figure cannot, it is plain, be : Hxclude from your com- 
munion the incestuous person * and other notorious offenders (Rosenmiiller), but: 
Himpty your church of the sinful habits, which still remain among you from 
your pre-Christian condition (as a residuum of the unregenerate radadc¢ dvOpw- 
moc, Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 22; Col. ii. 9).? Flatt, Pott, and Riickert join 
the two ideas together ; but this is unwarranted and against the unity of 
sense of the passage. Respecting r7v raAadyv, comp. Ignatius, Magnes. 10 : 
TH KakHnv Cbhugv tiv rarawheioay kat évosicacav. —'The expression éxxafdp. (comp. 
Plato, Huth. p.3 A; LXX. Deut. xxvi. 18) is selected in view of the custom, 
based on Ex. xii. 15 ff., xiii. 7, and very strictly observed among the Jews, 
of removing all leaven from the houses on the day before the Passover (see 
as to this, Schoettgen, Hor. p. 598 ; Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1111 
f.), which was meant to be a sign of the moral purification of the house 
(Ewald, Alterth. p. 475 f.). — véov dipaua] a fresh kneaded mass, i.e. figure 
apart : a morally new church, freshly restored after the separation from it of 
all immoral fermenting elements, its members being véo. dvOpwroe through 
Christ (Col. iii. 9, 10). As respects the difference between véoc and xaivéc, 
see on Col. ill. 10.—kafé¢ éore afvuor] in accordance with your unleavened 
character, 7.€. in keeping with the ethical nature of the position of a Chris- 
tian, which, as such, is separated from sin. For this &fvyov elvac is the essen- 
tial characteristic in the Christian, —who is, it is taken for granted, reconciled 
to God, born again, spiritually dead and risen again with Christ (Rom. vi. 
2 ff.), and who as a new xriowc of God (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 
10) in the kawéry¢ rvebwatoc (Rom. vii. 6) is free from the law of sin and 
death (Rom. viii. 2), and constantly developing the powers of a divine life 
towards perfect holiness (vi. 11 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ff.), being alive unto God as 
His child in whom Christ lives (Gal. ii. 19, 20)—and sin in such an one (the 


1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius & Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hof- 
Lapide, Zeger, Estius, Michaelis. mann. 
2Comp. Theodoret, Calvin, de Wette, 


116 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
being leavened) is abnormal. Hence Christians are—according to this 
higher mode of regarding the position of a Christian—dfvyo. There is as 
little warrant for rendering éoré here by esse debetis (Flatt, Pott, Billroth, 
following Chrysostom, Theophylact, al.) as in Luke ix. 55. Rosenmiiller 
holds that afvu. has here its proper meaning : as ye now ‘‘ vivitis festos dies 
azymorum.” But arvuoc, in fact, does not mean qui abstinet fermento (as 
Grotius would make out, likening it to dovroc, dowoc), but non fermentatus 
(comp. N82). Plato, Tim. p. 74D; Athen. iii. p. 109 B; Gen. xix. 8 ; 
Ezek. xxix. 2, al. Moreover, Paul could not address these words in that 
proper meaning to the church as a whole, even if the Jewish-Christians among 
them still kept the Jewish Passover. — xai yap 7d raoya x.t.A.] The motive 
The emphasis ison 7d rdoya,* and cat yép does not mean 
simply for, etenim, but for also (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f.; Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B), the ‘‘ also” introducing the objective relation of 
“things corresponding to the exhortation which had just been given. The 
paschal lamb slain, and the leaven not purged out—what a contradiction 
that is! Paul designates Christ as the Christians’ paschal lamb which had 
been slain (Deut. xvi. 6; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7), because He is the 
antitype of the Passover lamb under the law, inasmuch, namely, as His 
blood was shed, not by any means merely ‘‘as the beginning of redemption 
which made it possible’ (Hofmann, Schriftbewers, II. 1, p. 823), but, accord- 
ing to the whole N. T., as the atonement for believers, and that, too, on the 
very same day (the day before the feast of the Passover, see on John xviii. 28) 
on which, from the earliest times, the blood of the paschal lambs had been 
shed as an expiation for each family (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f. ; Keil, 
§ Ixxxi. 11). Comp. also John xix. 36. In connection with this verse it has 
been justly remarked (comp. on John xviii. 28, and Liicke in the Gdt#. gel. 
Anz. 1834, p. 2020), that Paul could not with propriety have given this title to 
Christ, if he had followed the Synoptical account of the day of Jesus’ death. 
Comp. Introd. to John, § 2. In point of fact, had he followed the tradition 
of the Synoptists, that death-day, as being the 15th Nisan, would, by the 
mode of conception necessarily arising from his Jewish nationality, have 
hindered his calling Christ antitypically the slain paschal lamb. For a 
Passover lamb slain on the first day of the feast would have been, to a Jew- 
ish mind moulded according to the ancient and venerated appointment of 
the divine law, a ‘‘ contradictio in adjecto ;”? even supposing’ that the point 
of the comparison—which, in accordance with the invariable Pauline mode 
of regarding the death of Jesus (comp. also on John i. 29), must of necessity 





for éxxafapate K.T.A. 


1Theodoret renders wrongly, for itis tion also agrees with this. See Gemara 


against the order of the words (asif it were 
Kal yap Hua@V T. 7.) Exomev Kal Nmets auvoy 
Luther and Neander. Erasmus translates 
correctly : ‘‘ Nam et pascha nostrum.” 

2 This passage, too, therefore goes to 
establish the position that John’s narrative, 
and not the Synoptic, is the historically cor- 
rect one as regards the day of the death of 
Jesus. Observe how the Rabbinical tradi- 


Bab. in Sanhedr. vi. 2: ‘* Traditio est, ves- 
pera Paschatis suspensum fuisse Jesum.” 


.It is well known that the 14th Nisan (the 


Preparation-day) was called MDS 37), ves- 
pera Paschatis. The fabulous circumstances 
linked with the death of Jesus itself in the 
passage of the Talmud referred to, do not 
affect the simple statement as to the time 
when it took place. 


CHAP. V., 8. | 11” 


be His being slain as a iraorhpv, Rom. iii. 25—were the new divine polity of 
the holy people, to which the death of Jesus stands, it is said, just in the 
same relation as the slaying of the paschal lamb in Egypt to the deliverance 
of Israel out of Egypt (as Hofmann objects). Wieseler, in his chronol. 
Synopse, p. 874 f. (comp. also his Beitr. 2. Wirdigung d. Hv. p. 266), urges as 
an argument on the other side, that in x. 16, rd rorfpiov Tipe ebdoyiac, as a tech- 
nical phrase for the cup in the Lord’s Supper, shows that this cup was iden- 
tified with that of the Passover. Assuredly ! but it shows also, in necessary 
connection therewith, that Christ slain on the 14th Nisan was the Paschal 
Lamb of believers. The Supper, therefore, which brought them into fellow- 
ship with the body and blood of Christ, could not but present itself to the 
Christian consciousness as the paschal meal, corresponding to the eating of 
the paschal lamb, and so, too, the ewp in the Supper as the antitype of the 
paschal cup. Consequently chap. x. 16, taken in connection with the pas- 
sage before us, speaks for and not against the account in John. It is, how- 
ever, from the view held by the primitive church respecting the Supper as 
the antitype of the paschal meal, that the origin of the Synoptical tradition 
is to be historically understood. See on John xviii. 28. 

Ver. 8. The paschal lamb having been slain, there follows the keeping of 
the feast, and that not with leaven, but with what is unleavened. Since, 
then, Christ has been slain as the Christian’s paschal lamb, they too must 
keep their feast in an ethical sense, that is to say, by leading a holy life, 
without sinful admixture; with pure and true Christian virtue. Hence the 
admonition : let ws therefore keep feast, etc. The égopr# implied in éopraé. is, it 
is true, the feast of the Passover, but in such a sense that the keeping of the 
Passover is meant to be a figurative representation of the character of the 
whole of a Christian’s walk and conversation, because this.is to be without 
moral leaven, etc. Comp. Philo, de congr. er. qu. gr. p. 447 D. It may be 
added, that Theodore of Mopsuestia says aptly : d¢ yap rapdv, otto pode 
Tove TapovTac Aowroy diahéyeTat. —év Chun rad.| Precisely asin ver. 7 ; not asa 
designation of the incestuous person (Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich), 
which would, besides, have required the article. ’Ev is used in the sense 
of provided with. Comp. on iv. 21. — pydé év Chun kak. x. rov.] singles out 
something special from the general ju) év ¢. rad.: and inparticular not with 
the leaven of maliciousness and wickedness (see on Rom. i. 29). The genitives 
are genitives appositionis. The apostle must have had ground enough in the 
condition of the church, even apart from the case of the incestuous man, for 
laying such peculiar stress in the way of warning upon nequitia and malitia. 
— atbyorc| from aZuua, what is unleavened, i.e. NYS (Ex. xii. 15,18). There is 
nothing (such as dprocc) that needs to be supplied. — Eidckpiv. and aAn6. differ 
from each other only in degree ;. the former is moral purity (kadapdrne dca- 
voiac Kal adoAdryc ovdév Eyovoat ovveckiacpévov Kai brovdov, Theophylact on 2 
Cor. i. 12) ; the latter, moral truth, the essence of actual moral goodness, 
See on John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; Phil. iv. 8. 





Remarx.—This whole allegory, vv. 6-8, would have been unnatural on Paul’s 
part, had he been writing this Epistle, which was written before Pentecost 


: 


118 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

(xvi. 8), after Easter, and so between that feast and Pentecost,—extremely nat- 
ural, on the other hand, if the Jewish Passover was then in immediate prospect. 
Were that the case, this very allegory, which is taken up by him in no other place, 
would offer itself to him unsought, so that the peculiar stamp of his discourse 
would be accounted for as bearing the impress of the festal thoughts awakened 
within him by the approach of the Passover. The passage before us, there- 
fore, compared with xvi. 8, is rightly regarded by Bengel and most of the suc- 
ceeding commentators (comp. especially Wieseler, Chronologie d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 
327 ff.) as giving evidence of the fact that Paul was now writing shortly before 
Easter. The few expositors who oppose this view (Henke on Paley’s Hor. Paul. 
p. 413 ff. ; Eichhorn, Hinl. III. p. 188 ; de Wette, Curtius, de temp. quo prior P. 
ad Tim., etc. p. 43; Schrader, II. p. 132 ; Hofmann) have only this in their 
favour, that a demonstrative proof is of course impossible. But it is a misun- 
derstanding of the passage to find in it an admonition to celebrate properly the 
approaching feast of Easter (see especially Heydenreich). Considering the figu- 
rative nature of the expression (see on ver. 8), we must not try to draw any in- 
ferences from this passage as to the question whether or how Christians kept the 
feast of Easter in those days (against Weitzel, Passahf. p. 183 ff. ; Lechler, p. 
350). Theophylact says well: deixvvow ott aC 6 ypovocg eoprig éoTt Kalpo¢ ToiC¢ 
Xptariavoic Jia thy brEepBoaAnv tov dolévtwy aitoicg ayafdv: dia TovTO yap 6 vide Tov 
Ocov avOpwroc yéyove Kai érvOn, iva oe éoptdlewy motyon. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Pas- 
chastreit, p. 173 f. 


Vv. 9-13. Citation and fuller explanation of a passage of the former letter 
which had been misinterpreted in Corinth by his malevolent adversaries. \ The 
new section begins without a connective particle, like vi. 1, v. 1. 

Ver. 9. Sequence of thought: What I have written to you thus far con- 
cerning the exclusion of the incestuous person, and concerning the purging 
out of the leaven, leads me now to speak of the passage in my former letter 
which has been misunderstood among you, etc. — év rH émuoroAq| t.€. in the 
letter which I wrote to you, and so : in my letter, by which Paul means the 
letter to the Corinthians, composed before the present one and in the posses- 
sion of his readers, but not in ours. So rightly Ambrosiaster, and after him 
Calvin, Beza, Estius, Clarius, Zeger, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Wetstein, 
Mosheim, Semler, and many others, including most modern interpreters. 
Chrysostom, again, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Fabricius, Wolf, Glass, Baumgarten, Bolten, Stosch (de epp. ap. non deperd. 
1753, p. 75 ff.), and Miiller (de trib. Pauli itinerib. Corinth. suscept. de epis- 
tolisque ad eosd. non deperdit., Basil. 1831), understand it of the present EHpis- 
tle, either supposing that a reference is intended to vv. 2 and 6, or even 
making éyp. apply to ver. 11. This method of interpretation arises for the 
most part from dogmatic prejudices,’ and has against it the following con- 


which itself owes its origin to a dogmatic 
retrospective inference — between canon 


1Grotius aptly remarks: ‘‘Satis Deo 
debemus, quod tot (epistolae) servatae 


sunt, ad quas si et singulorum vita et regi- 
men ecclesiae dirigatur, bene erit.’’ Comp. 
Calvin. Calovius, in order to defend the 
integrity of the canon against the Roman 
Catholics, insists upon the distinction— 


particularis and universalis, temporalis and 
perpetuus. Divine Providence, he holds, did 
not design the lost Epistle ad usum canoni- 
cum perpetuum of the whole church, and 
therefore allowed it to perish. 


/ 


CHAP. V., 10. 119 


siderations : jirst, the parallel passage in 2 Cor. vii. 8 3 secondly, that év r7 
éx. would in that case be singularly superfluous ; thirdly, the fact that u7 
cvvavam. tépv. Occurs neither in ver. 2 nor ver. 6 ; and finally, that no occa- 
sion at all had been given in the preceding statements for any such misap- 
prehension as is here corrected. Lange, in his Apostol. Zeitalter, I. p. 205, 
pronounces in a peculiarly positive way that the hypothesis of a lost Epistle 
is a ‘‘ fiction ;”? Paul means the present letter, but distinguishes it as a letter 
from the ecstatic act which he had just performed through the medium of 
this letter, namely, the transference of himself in spirit into the midst of the 
church ; what he wishes to declare is the permanent epistolary significance of 
that act. But this itself is quite an empty ‘‘jiction,” since there is not a 
trace of an ecstasy here, since Paul would, on this theory, have taken the 
very vaguest way possible of expressing his supposed meaning, and since the 
parallel statement in 2 Cor. vii. 8 is decisively against any such arbitrary 
fancies. (N) It may be added that, when Riickert holds that the article here, 
and the absence of any defining adjective, prove the lost Epistle to have been 
the only one which Paul had then already sent to Corinth, this, on a com- 
parison with 2 Cor. vii. 8, appears to be an over-hasty conclusion, although, 
so far as the fact itself is concerned, it may be regarded as correct, seeing 
that we have no hint of any other lost letter having also preceded our first 
Epistle. — ovvavayucyv.| to mix oneself up with, have intercourse with, 2 Thess. 
iii. 14; Athen. vi. p. 256 A; Lucian. Cont. xv. Comp. the affirmative 
oréAAecdas ard, 2 Thess. ili. 6. — répvoc, in the N. T. and in Ecclus. xxiii. 
16, signifies fornicator.' See also Lennep. Phalar. ep. xi. p. 60. 2. 

Ver. 10. More precise negative explanation of the rule laid down in the 
said letter, uw cvvavay. répy., which had been misinterpreted among the 
Corinthians (as Paul gathered probably from their letter to him) into a pro- 
hibition of association with fornicators among those who were not Christians ; 
perhaps from a disposition to connive at the offenders within the bosom of 
the church itself. — ob rdvtwc toic répv. tr. x. T.] is dependent on py ovvava- 
juyv. ; it stands in a relation of opposition to the preceding répvoic, and ex- 
plains what that zépvore did not mean. ‘‘I wrote to you to refrain from 
intercourse with fornicators, (i.e.) not absolutely? with the fornicators of this 
world.” An entire cessation of intercourse with rdpvorc in that sense of the 
word, it would, of course, be impossible to establish, seeing that you can- 
not go out of the world ; but what I meant was Christians given to forni- 
cation, ver. 11. Comp. Plato, Pol. v. p. 454 C: ob révtw¢ riv abray kK. THY 
étépav dbow éribéueba, a2? éxeivo 76 eldog udvov x.t.A. The od instead of yA is 
correct enough (in opposition to Riickert), because ob ravtw¢ r. répv. 7. kK. T. 
conveys something which is objectively denied, a definition of the notion of 
mépvoig, Which does not occur. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 334 [E. T. 
389]. The conception is a different one, ¢.g., in Plato, Pol. iv. p. 419 A: 
édv Tic o€ of py Tavu TL Evdaimovac ToLeiv Tov’Tovc. Commentators often supply 


1 Jn the classics, mostly of wnnatural vice mon with Greek writers (Lobeck, Paral. p. 
(with males). Becker, Charides, I. p. 346 ff. ; 57), would have been still stronger if used 
Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxix. 22. in place of mavrws, altogether, absolutely. 

2? The phrase wavty wavtws, Which is com- See generally on ix. 22. 


120 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


éypaa after ov 3 so, among the rest, Olshausen ; not (wrote I, meant I): with 
the fornicators of this world in general. But what an arbitrary separation 
this is of the mutually connected words od ravtw¢ ! And the interpretation 
in question has this, too, against it, that 7. xéouov r. does not refer to the 
world in general, but to those who were non-Christians (see below), so that 
the ‘‘in general” would be logically incorrect. Riickert takes od ravtwe as 
an intensified negative like that in Rom. ii. 9 (comp. Luther), and supplies 
éypawa after it: ‘* By no means did I write ; t.e., the import of my prohi- 
bition was by no means, to have no intercourse with the fornicators of this 
world.” But so understood, the words would lend countenance to inter- 
course with fornicators not Christian, which cannot be Paul’s meaning. 
His intention is merely to set aside the misinterpretation which had been 
put upon his words, as if he had meant thereby to enforce an absolute ces- 
sation of intercourse with unchaste men outside the Christian society. 
Lastly, Billroth is wrong in rendering, after Chrysostom and Theophylact 
(70 TavTOC oe énl Guohoynuévov TéetKe Tpaypatoc): ‘‘ not, of course, with 
the fornicators of this world.” In that case, we should have had at least 
ravtwe ov, for the sense would be, as Theophylact himself states : xa? ravtwc¢ 
ov Toig mépvorg T. Kdopov cvvavaplyvuobat éxdAvoa, TouvTécTe Tol¢ TOV ‘EAAAVaV. — 
tov Kécuov tobtov] who belong to this (ante-Messianic) world, not, like the 
Christians, to the Messiah’s kingdom as its future members ; hence it is the 
addétpioe tHE miotewe (Theodoret) who are here denoted, whose opposite is 
the ddeAoéc in ver. 11. To understand it of mankind in general, Christians 
and non-Christians together (Pott, Hofmann, al.), is, seeing that rotrov is 
joined with it, contrary to the apostle’s mode of using language (Gal. iv. 3 ; 
Col. u. 8; Eph. ii. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 19, vii. 81; 2 Cor. iv. 4), and contrary 
also to the context (vv. 11, 12). Afterwards, when Paul is thinking of the 
world of men in general, he purposely omits the roirov. — 7% toig mAeovéxtasc 
x.t.2.| We may suppose that Paul, in the passage of his former letter now 
alluded to, had warned them not merely against zépvorc, but also against 
those guilty of the other kinds of vice indicated here, and yet more specifi- 
cally in ver. 11. Hence: ‘‘with the fornicators of this world, or—not to 
overlook the others, with whom also I forbade you to hold intercourse— 
with those greedy of gain, and violently grasping at it.” These two, connected 
with each other as general, and particular by «ai (see the critical remarks), 
are conceived of as belonging together to one category. It is otherwise in 
ver. 11, where each of these sins is viewed by itself. As to dpz., the essen- 
tial characteristic of which is violence, comp. Luke xviii. 11; Soph. Phil. 
640: KAéWar Te yaprdca Bia. —T. xéouov 7. is to be understood again after 
dp. and eidwA. See ver. 11. — ére? odeidete x.7.2.] for so, (were you absolutely 
and entirely to break off from the heathen fornicators, etc.) you must needs 
go out of the world (érépav oixovpévgy ogeirete Cyt7oat, Theophylact), since no- 
where could you be perfectly relieved from casual contact with such non- 
Christians. J should thus have demanded what was impossible. As re- 
gards the direct d¢ciAere, comp. vii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 6, xi. 6, 22. It is attested 
by B, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. In place of it, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Riickert, and Hofmann read dgeiAere, which has, indeed, the preponderance 


CHAP. Nees. 121 


of evidence in its favour, but must be considered as an emendation. The 
strangeness of the conclusion is not conveyed by the dpa (Hofmann, following 
the mistake of Hartung), but by the case itself assumed, in which the 
apa merely introduces what was indubitably involved in the supposed pro- 
tasis (comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 19 ff.). See against Hartung, Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. I. p. 214. 

Ver. 11. Nov? dé] But thus (see on Rom. iii. 21), in reality as contrasted 
with the aforesaid misconstruction, J did write to you. Herewith Paul now 
introduces the trve meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above, 
ver. 9. Other expositors make vuvi dé refer to time: but at present (Caje- 
tanus, Morus, Pott, Heydenreich). But the whole context is against this ; 
according to it, Paul’s design is simply to define more precisely the purport 
of that phrase in his former letters : ‘‘ 7) ovvavayiyyvvoba répvoic.” He has 
done this only negatively in ver. 10, but goes on now to do it positively in 
ver. 11. Further, were a contrast drawn between the present and: the 
former letter, the present ypadw would have been more natural and more 
distinct than the epistolary aorist (see on Gal. vi. 11) ; nay, to obviate the 
misunderstanding, it would have been a thing of necessity, iv. 14. — adeAddc 
évouatéu.| the most important element in the more definite explanation? 
which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition : being called a brother, 
i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp. évoya éyew, Rev. iii. 1. Estius, 
following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins dévouag. with 
what comes after, in the sense of : if a brother is a notorious fornicator, 
having the name of being such. But dvoudfecPa: means always simply to be 
called, without any such pregnancy of significance either in a good or bad 
sense (even in Eph. i. 21, v. 8; Rom. xv. 20). Had Paul wished to express 
the meaning of : bearing the character and repute of a fornicator, he must 
have used the phrase dvoudlecOa eivac répvoc (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 428 E ; Prot. 
p- 311 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited 
the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its 
moral force. — Aoidopoc] as in-vi. 10 ; comp. on iv. 12. — eidwAordrpyec| Estius 
observes well that this applies to the Christian, who ‘‘sive ex animo, seu 
metu, seu placendi voluntate, seu quavis alia ratione inductus, infidelium 
sacris se admiscet, ut vel idolum colat, opere saltem externo, vel de idolo- 
thytis ‘edat.” Comp. vi. 9, viii. 10, x. 7, xiv. 1; John v. 21; and Diister- 
- diek im loc. Among the frivolous Corinthians, such reversions to the old 
habits and fellowship might not be uncommon. — péOvooc] used by old 
writers only of the female sex ; but of the male also in later Greek, after 
Menander. See Wetstein ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 151 f. ; Meineke, Menan- 
der, p. 27. — There are no traces discernible of a logical order in the series 
of vices here enumerated beyond this, that the three which are of specifi- 
cally heathen character are put first, and then three others follow, which 


1 This more detailed definition, therefore,  vayuiy. mépvors as they had actually done. 
cannot have been given expressly in the For there is no indication in the text that 
lost Epistle, but must have beentakenfor the misinterpretation was a wilful and 
granted as self-evident. Otherwise they malicious one, arising out of kakta x, wovypia, 
could not have so misinterpreted the cvva- ver. 8 (Hofmann). 


122 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


destroy the peace of the church-life. —76 rt. uydé Gvvec8.] parallel, though: 
by way of climax, to the 7) ovvavay. ; hence not anacoluthic in point of 
construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the 
Agapae (Vorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydenreich), which would suit neither 
the quite general phrase cuvvecf. (comp. xi. 20) nor the intensifying pydé. ° 
It means : with one so constituted (comp. ver. 5) not even to have fellowship at 
table (neither to ask him to your table, nor sit with him at his). Comp. 
Luke xv. 2; Gal. ii. 12. This implies of course of itself, that they ought 
also to have no fellowship at the Agapae with such persons. Ei dé koevijc 
TpogHe Toi¢ ToLobTOLC Ov Set KoLVavEiv, HrOV ye “voTLKhe Te Kal Veiac, Theodoret. Re- 
specting the distinction between the py cvvavayiyv. and excommunication, 
see 2 Thess. ii. 15. , 

Ver. 12f. The reason for his having spoken in reference to the Christians, 
and not those without the Christian pale: jor it does not at all concern me to 
be passing disciplinary judgments upon the latter. — ri yép pot] for what concern 
is it of mine? ete. See Wetstein on the passage, and Schaefer, ad Bos. Hil. 
p- 598. The emphasis falls so entirely upon ri and rot¢ éw, that we have 
not éuoi, which is not needed even if the reading xai (even, besides) r. é&w be 
adopted. — rod¢ éw] was with the Jews the standing name (0°213"N) for the 
heathen (see Lightfoot, Hor., ad Mare. iv. 11; Schoettgen on this verse ; 
Kypke, I. p. 198); and so, in like manner, with the Christians it was the 
standing appellation for all who were non-Christians, as being outside the 
fellowship of the true people of God (Col. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Tim. 
ill. 7). —obyt rode gow bucic kpivere ;] By this question Paul appeals, in justi- 
fication of what he has just said: ‘‘what does it concern me,” etc., to the 
exercise of judicial functions by his readers themselves in the administration of 
church discipline, in so far, that is to say, as that discipline bore upon their 
Jfellow- Christians, and not upon those outside of the Christian society. 
Riickert thinks that Paul means to say : Judging is not my matter at all (see- 
ing that the members of the church were judged by their fellow-members 
themselves ; while those without, again, God would hereafter judge). But 
judging was doubtless his matter (see vv. 4-6, vv. 11, 13), only not re- 
specting those é%~. What he means is rather this: ‘‘To judge those who 
are not Christians is no concern of mine, any more than you take in hand to 
judge any others except your fellow-believers.” ‘‘Ex eo, quod in ecclesia 
fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9: cives judicatis, 
non alienos,” Bengel. The simple xpivere is altered in meaning by Billroth: 
Isit not enough that ye? etc., as well as by Castalio, Grotius, al.: judicare 
debetis (we find this interpretation as early as Theophylact). The Corinthi- 
ans actually judged, every time that they passed a sentence of ecclesiastical 
discipline. Lastly, it is a mistake to render, as is done by tzvéc in Theo- 
phylact, Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Heydenreich : No; judge ve your fellow-Christians! Odyi is not a suitable 
answer to ri, and would, besides, require a2Ada after it (Rom. ili, 27 ; Luke 
1. 60, xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 80), and that with a clause forming a logically 
correct antithesis to the question put. 

Ver. 13. But of those that are without Godis judge,—not I and not you. 


CHAP. V., Lo; 123 
This statement appears more weighty and striking when taken as a sen- 
tence by itself, than as a continuation of the question (and still in depend- 
ence upon ovyi ; so Lachmann, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann). The ac- 
centuation «pivei* is to be rejected, because it is clear from the context, that 
so far from there being any necessity for the reference to the last judgment 
which would give occasion for the future (Rom. iii. 6, ii. 16), on the con- 
trary the present xpiver: (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, al., Pott, de Wette) 
corresponds in much the most natural way to the preceding «pivecy and xpi- 
vere. According to this view, then, the future judgment is neither exclu- 
sively pointed to by xpiver, nor is it thereby excluded ; but the judgment of 
those who are non-Christians is described generally as a matter for God, 
whenever and however it may take place. — Paul has now ended his more 
definite explanation and correction as regards that misunderstood statement 
in his letter, ver. 9. But for the Corinthians what more direct inference 
could be drawn from this explanation, than the duty of expelling the of- 
fender already spoken of, whom they should indeed have excluded before 
(ver. 2)? Hence the apostle adds, without further preface (note, too, the 
aorist), the brief categorical command : éfdparte x.t.2.. This injunction cor- 
responds so exactly to the LXX. version of Deut. xxiv. 7, that it must be 
set down as simply arbitrary to deny that the form of expression here was 
purposely selected from remembrance of that passage. Mwcaixyy rédecke 
paptupiav, Selo voum BeBatdoac tov Adyov, Theodoret. Hofmann conjectures 
that Paul wrote «ai éapet re, and that this meant : and no less will He (God) 
also take away the wicked one (those who are wicked in general) from the midst 
of you ;” but this is neither critically established—since the Recepta kai 
iEapeite 18 On critical grounds to be utterly rejected—nor grammatically ad- 
missible, for the assumed use of xai . . . ré is foreign both to Attic prose 
and to the N. T. ;? nor, finally, isit in accordance with the context, for rdv 
rovnpov manifestly refers to the specific malefactor of ver. 2, and to his ex- 
clusion from church ; comp. Augustine : ‘rdv rovnpdv, quod est hunc malig- 
num.” — iuev aitov| ismore expressive than the simple ipav : from the midst 
of yourselves, in which you have hitherto tolerated him. Bengel’s com- 
ment hits the mark: ‘antitheton externos.” 


Remarx.—Paul has ended what he had to say against the party-divisions in 
chap. iv. That the evils censured in chap. v. (and vi.) had any connection in 
point of principle with the party-divisions, is a view which finds no trace of 
support in the apostle’s way of speaking of them. Hence, too, it is impossible 
to prove that the persons at whom Paul’s censures were levelled belonged to 


1 Although preferred by Luther, Grotius, 
Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, Valckenaer, di., 
Lachmann, Scholz, Riickert, Olshausen, 113 ff.; also Kriiger on Thue. i. 9. 3. The 
Tischendorf, Ewald, Hofmann (in accord- atque etiam would have been rendered by 
ance with Arm. Copt. Vulgate, Chrysostom, «ai... 6¢ Withrespect to the occurrence 
al.). of xaé re and cai... te, without a corre- 

*The apparent proof - passages from sponding «aé after it, in Homer, Herodotus, 


Bornemann, ad Ana. i. 8. 3; Kiihner, ad 
Memor. iv. 2.28; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 


Greek writers are either founded on cor- 
rupt readings or are deprived of their force 
when correctly expiained. See especially 


etc., see Nigelsbach on the Jliad, p. 176 f., 
ed. 3; and on the whole subject, comp. 
Matthiae, § 626, p. 1504 f. 


124 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


any one special party, and if so, to which. In particular, we must refrain from 
attempting to refer the vopveia in question, and its odious manifestation, to one 
definite party, and to the principles held by it, whether to the Pauline section 
(Neander), or the Christ-party (Olshausen, Jaeger, Kniewel), or the Apollonians 
(Ribiger), This much only may be regarded as certain, that the misuse of 
Christian freedom, so far as that in principle lay at the root of the mischief (vi. 
12), cannot be charged upon the Petrine party. 


Notts By AMERICAN EDIToR. 


{m) Church discipline. Ver. 5. 


The case mentioned here is of importance as settling once for all the duty, 
the limits, and the object of ecclesiastical discipline. Disorderly conduct is 
not to be left simply to the action of the ordinary influence of Christian teach- 
ing, but must be dealt with directly by the church in the way of judicial in- 
quiry. Immorality is not to be tolerated among the avowed followers of Christ. 
This, however, does not involve the infliction of temporal pains and penalties. 
Nothing of this kind is even hinted at in the account of the treatment of the 
incestuous man. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and neither requires 
nor admits of the secular arm to enforce its decisions. Its whole action is 
moral and spiritual, and the extremest infliction it can impose in any case is 
exclusion from its fellowship. The reasons for exercising such discipline are— 
first, the honour of Christ, which is sadly impeached when open sin is allowed 
among those who confess His name. To make ‘Christ the minister of sin” 
is agrievous offence. Secondly, the welfare of the church requires that trans- 
gressors should be dealt with. For sin is a spreading leprosy. It may begin 
in a small and obscure place, but unless arrested will increase and diffuse itself 
till the whole body is infected. A moral gangrene must be cut out. Thirdly, 
the welfare of the offender himself, which, although it is subordinate to the 
other considerations mentioned, is never to be lost sight of. The wise, kindly, 
deliberate action of the church may save the erring member. And hence, how- 
ever summary the exclusion, the door is always left open for return. No act 
of excommunication is irrevocable. Its object, so far as the offender is con- 
cerned, is his recovery, and if he repent and come toa better mind, nothing 
stands in the way of his readmission to the privileges of Christ’s house. 

It is obvious, however, that it was the second of these considerations that the 
Apostle had in mind, as he adds, ‘‘ A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” 
This does not mean simply that one scandal robs the whole church of its Chris- 
tian character, but rather suggests the spreading nature of sin alike in indi- 
viduals and communities. A single cherished sin, however secret, diffuses its 
corrupting influence over the whole soul ; it depraves the conscience ; it indu- 
rates the moral sensibilities ; it cuts off from prayer or renders it formal and 
empty ; it paralyzes the usual means of grace ; and it opens the door for other 
forms of evil. And all this holds good of a society as well as of a single be- 
liever. The only safe rule is to resist at the beginning, and continuously to 
purge out the old leaven, and to make the whole life one of perpetual conse- 
cration to God. 


a ti eae ah ey ee NOTES. 125 


(x) Lost epistles. Ver. 9. 


VE The majority of interpreters agree with Meyer, that the Apostle here refers 
- to a former epistle which has not been preserved. Some object to this, because 
a they think it would imply that we have an imperfect Bible. But this conclu- 
7 sion by no means follows. Nothing is more natural than to suppose that the 
4 { Apostles wrote many letters, designed simply to serve some local or temporary 
purpose, and not intended to serve as part of the rule of faith and conduct for 
allages. If so, it was of no consequence whether such writings were preserved 
or not. It seems certain that the church has all the inspired epistles which 
-_-~—-—s« God designed she should have. Nothing that ever was justly in the Canon has 
" been lost from it, so far as any evidence on the subject can be gathered from 
___ the records of the early church. 





v 


126 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER VIL. 


Ver. 2. 7] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive evidence in its favour. — Ver. 5. 
Aéyo| Lachm., has 2046, on the authority of Balone. Inthe absence of internal 
grounds for decision, this is too weakly attested, far weaker than in xv. 34. — 
évi] so Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following BCL &, min. Chrys. 
Theodoret, al. How easily the familiar éoriv (so Elz.) would creep in !— codo¢ 
ovdé cig] Lachm. and Ruck. read ovdei¢ cogdc, with BC &, min. Copt. Damasc. 
D* E, Clar. Germ. Aeth. Athan. have simply cogéc ; F and G have ovdé éi¢ cogdc. 
In A, the whole passage vv. 3-6 is wanting (from the similarity of the two last 
syllables iotwv in vv. 2 and 6). From this it appears that the evidence for ovdei¢ 
capd¢ certainly preponderates, against which, however, there must be set the 
difficulty of seeing why this reading should have undergone alteration. Were 
cogoc ovdé elc, on the other hand, the original reading (D*** L, most of the 
min. Vulg., both Syr. Ar. p. and the majority of the Fathers), we have in the 
first place a very natural explanation of the omission of ovdé ei¢ (which Griesb. 
approves of), inasmuch as copyists went right on from cogOX to OX, and the 
two other variations would then arise from dissimilar critical restorations of the 
text. — Ver. 7. Elz. has év juiv against decisive evidence. An interpretation. 
— Ver. 8. kai tavta] Lachm, Riick. and Tisch. have kai rovro, following A B C D 
E &, min, vss. and Fathers, Rightly ; the plural crept in, because two things 
were mentioned! (ddv«. and droor.). — Ver. 9. There is conclusive evidence for 
reading Ocod Bac. in place of fac. Ocov. In ver. 10, again, this order is too weak- 
ly attested to be received. — Ver. 10. The ov before «Anp. is wanting in A BCD E 
8, min. Copt. Ignat. Method. Athan. Chrys. al. Deleted-by Lachm. and Riick. 
with justice ; for while the preceding Ocod might in itself just as easily lead to 
the omission as (by repetition of the last syllable) to the insertion of the ov, the 
latter was favoured by ver. 9. — Ver. 14. 7d¢] Elz, has dude, against decisive tes- 
timony (perhaps from Rom. viii. 11). — éfeyepet] Lachm. and Ewald read é&e- 
yeiper, With A D*, Band 67** have éfjyeipe. The Recepta should be adhered 
to, with Tisch., following C D*** E K L &, min. Vulg., both Syr. Copt. Aeth. 
Arr. and many Fathers. The connection makes the future necessary as the 
correlative of xatapyjoet in ver. 13, andthe evidence in its favour is prepon- 
derant, in view of the divided state of the codd. for the other readings. As to 
étnyecpe and ééeyelper, the former looks like a mechanical repetition of the pre- 
ceding tense, and the latter a slip of the pen. — 7 ov« (not the simple ove) has 
decisive evidence on its side. — Ver. 19. 7d ocdua] Matth. and Tisch.! read ra 
oauara upon insufficient evidence, part of which is in favour of the plural in 
ver, 20 also. The alteration to the plural was naturally suggested by the con- 
nection. — Ver. 20. kai év 7G Tvevuate dudv, Gtivd éott Tov Oeov is deleted by all 
modern editors (except Matth.) since Mill and Griesh., following A B C* D* E 
FG &, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Method. Didym. Cyr. Maxim. Damase, Tert. 


1 [Tischendorf returns to the singular in his last edition. — T. W. C.] 


CHAP. VIi, 1: 127 


Cypr. Ir. Ambrosiast. and all the Latin Fathers. An ascetic addition, although 
a very old one (occurring even in the Syriac), which got into all the wider cir- 
culation because achurch-lesson begins with dogdoare. Comp. Reiche, Comm. 
crit. I. p. 165 ff. 


Vv. 1-11. The readers are not to go to law before the heathen (vv. 1-6) ; 
and generally, they are, instead of contending with one another, rather to suffer 
wrong than to do it, bearing in mind that the unrighteous shall not become par- 
takers in the Messianic kingdom (vv. 7-10), and that they, as Christians, have 
become pure, holy, and righteous (ver. 11). 7 

Ver. 1. A new section, not connected with what has gone before. Paul 
starts at once with a question of lively surprise : Dare’ any one, etc., and so 
plunges in mediam rem.? The connections of thought, which some have 
traced out, are arbitrary inventions. This applies not only to Baur’s view 
(in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 10 f.), that it was the damage done to the Chris- 
tian cause in public opinion, both by the immorality discussed in chap. v. and 
by the lawsuits carried on before the heathen, that led the apostle thus to 
pass from the one subject to the other,—but also to the connection which 
Hofmann seeks to establish between this Passage and the censure pronounced 
upon the insufficient judicial action taken by the church with its members 
after the occurrence of the case already adverted to. The judicial proceed- 
ings now referred to are plainly of quite another kind, not in the way of 
discipline, but of private lawsuits ; and, moreover, as to former judicial 
action of the church, not merely was it insufficient, but nothing of the sort 
had taken place at all with respect to the xépvoc. Paul does not employ so 
much as a dé, or an aad, or any other form of connection, but goes on with 
epistolary freedom, leaping, as it were, from one point of censure to 
another. — ric] any one whatever. 'The quite general treatment of the subject 
which follows shows that no specific individual (Semler) is meant, although 
it must be left undetermined whether some specially striking case, possibly 
that of a rich and powerful man (Ewald), may not have given occasion for 
the apostle’s sending these admonitions. — rpayua] lawsuit, matter of dis- 
pute. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 9.1 ; Demosth. 1120. 26 ; Josephus, Anté. xiv. 
10. 7. —xpivecba| go to law, litigare; see on Rom. iii. 4; Wetstein, ad 
Matth. v. 40. — ini rév ddixwrv] before (Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 469]) the unright- 
cous ; a specially significant designation of the heathen (see on Gal. ii. 5), as 


eS oo 


te" 


1Bengel says aptly: ‘“‘grandi verbo ver. 1 as affirmative (against Lachmann). 


notatur laesa majestas Christianorum.”’ 
Schrader imports an ironical meaning into 
the word, which is irrelevant. The right 
interpretation is given by Chrysostom: 
TOAMYS EoTL TO TPAyuGa Kai Tapavouias, See as 
to toApav, sustinere, non erubescere, Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Phil. p. 13 D; Jacobs, ad 
Athen. addit. p. 309. Comp. the proverbial 
phrase wav roAuav. 

2 Tt is out of the harmony with the fervid 
tone of the whole passage, in which ques- 
tion is heaped on question, to understand 


Least of all can we agree with Hofmann in 
taking the words down to aéicwv affirma- 
tively, and then regarding x. ovxi én. 7. 
ayiwv as a query that strikes in there: for 
él T. adixwv, Kat ovxi é€, 7. ay., iS plainly just 
the ordinary antithesis of assertion and ne- 
gation joined together by cai ov. To make 
Hofmann’s rendering logically tenable, it 
would be needful that Paul should, instead 
of «, odxi, have written : Kaiti ovxi, and why 
not before the saints ? 


128 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. © 


contrasted with the Christians, who are ayo: (sec oni. 2). Chrysostom puts 
it well : ob« cixev* éxt Tév arictwv (as in ver. 6, where the opposite of adeAdédc 
was required), da’ éxi tév adixwr, AéEw Oeig Ho pdduota ypeiav elyev ele tiv 
cpokeévyy brdbeow, ote axotpépa kat dwayayeiv. There is indeed a contra- 
dictio in adjecto in the xpiveoOa éxi tr. adixov ! For the Rabbinical prohibi- 
tions of going to law before the heathen, see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. 
Il. p. 472 ff. (e.g. Tanchuma, f. 92. 2: ‘Statutum est, ad quod omnes Isra- 
elitae obligantur, eum, qui litem cum alio habet, nor debere eam tractare 
coram gentibus”). The tribunal intended by Paul is not merely that of 
arbitration, which had passed over from Judaism (see Michaelis, Hint. I. p. 
1221 f.; comp. Lightfoot, Hor. on ver. 4; Vitringa, de Synag. p. 816 ff.) 
to Christianity, but his meaning is : instead of carrying on lawsuits against 
each other before the heathen, they were to adjust their disputes before 
Christians, which. could of course be done only in the way of arbitration? 
(comp. ver. 5) ; according to this, therefore, different forms of the kpiveca 
are present to the apostle’s mind in speaking of the judgment éz? r. ad. and 
éxi r. dy.; in the former case, that by legal process ; in the latter, that by 
arbitration through means of dva:tyrai. —'Theodoret remarks justly (on ver. 
6), that the prohibition of the kplveobat él Tov adikwy is not at variance with 
Rom. xiii. 1 ff.: ob ydp avtitetvew Kehebec toic apyovov, GAAA Toi¢g HOtKnuEVvOLE 
vowoleret un KEexpyola Toig apxovor. Td yap aipeioba 7} adikeiobar 7 mapa ToiC 
duorlarore OoKiualecOa THC avTav éEnpTaTo yroune. 

Ver. 2. “H ov« oidate x.7.2.] unveils the entire preposterousness of the course 
with which his readers were reproached in the indignant question of ver. 1 : 
‘*Dare any of you do that,—or know ye not?” etc. Only on the ground of 
this not knowing could you betake yourselves to such unworthy kpiveoba ! 
Xd towvy 6 péAAwv Kpivewv éxeivore téTe, THC br’ Exeivor avéyn Kpivecba viv; Chry- 
sostom. —rdv kéopov kpivover] at the last gudgment, namely, sitting along with 
Christ as judges over all who are not Christians (xéouoc). Comp. as early a 
passage as Wisd. iii. 8. We have here the same conception ?—only general- 
ized with respect to the subjects of judgment—as in Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke 
xxii. 30. It stands in essential and logical connection with the participa- 
tion in the glory of Christ (iv. 8 ; Rom. vii. 17 ; 2 Tim. i. 11 f.), which 
Christians are to attain after the Parousia, and after they themselves have 
been judged (Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 1). We must not, 
however, refer this (with Hofmann) to the period of the reign of Christ and 
His people predicted in Rev. xx. 4 (when the xécyoc, too, shall be subjected 
to their judicial authority), especially seeing that Chiliasm is a specifically 
Apocalyptic and not a,Pauline conception ; comp. on xv, 24. Chrysostom 
again, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Schol. ap Matth., Erasmus, 
and others, explain it of an indirect, not literal judging, namely, either 
by the faith and life of Christians placing the guilt of the xéowo¢ in a 
clearer light in the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 41), or by their approving 
of the judicial sentence of Christ (Estius, Maier). But this (although as- 


1 Hence this passage does not at all run 2 Observe that this view necessarily pre- 
counter to the injunction to obey magis- supposes the resurrection of unbelievers also 
trates. Comp. Weiss, 0ib/. Theol. p. 417. (Acts xvii. 31). Comp. on xy. 24. 


CHAP. VI.,.2. 129 


sumed by Billroth as the ideal truth which underlay the words of the apostle, 
unconsciously to himself) is an alteration of the sense which runs counter to 
the context ; for the whole argument a majori ad minus is destroyed, if 
Kptvovor 18 to be understood in a one-sided way as equivalent to caraxp., and 
if no proper and personal act of judgment is designed.’ It isa mistake 
also to hold, with Lightfoot, Vitringa, Baumgarten, Bolten, that Paul means 
quod Christiant futurt sint magistratus (Lightfoot), which is at variance with 
ver. 38, and with the conception of the speedily approaching Parousia.. 
Mosheim, Ernesti, Nésselt, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz turn the ‘“ shall judge” 
into ‘‘can judge,” comparing ii. 15, 16. But this, too, is to alter the notion 
of «pivev in a way contrary to the text (judge of): and the can, since it 
would have an emphasis of special significance here, and would denote ‘‘ be 
in a position to,” would require to be expressly inserted. Comp. rather the 
prophetic basis of the thought in Dan. vii. 22.— kai ei év byiv «.7.4.] The 
quick striking in of the «ai in the very front of the question is as in ver. 2 ; 
see also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 123. — ei év iu. xp. 6 xéou.| repeats with em- 
phasis, and with an individualizing force (jyiv), the contents of the truth 
already stated and established to the believing consciousness (hence the 
present xpivera). The év tyuiv, here emphatically put first, does not mean, 
as Chrysostom and Theophylact think,’ in your instance, exemplo vestro (see 
above), but among you, i.e. in consessu vestro (see Kypke, I. p. 199), so that 
the essential meaning is not different from coram (Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 33. 
285) ; comp. év dexaoraic, Thuc. i. 53. 1, év vowobéraic x.7.A. See, too, the 
passages in Wetstein. The éy therefore by no means stands for j7é (Raphel, 
- Flatt, al.), although we may gather from the context that the iyeic are them- 
selves the parties judging (vv. 2, 4). Nor hasit the force of through (Grotius, 
Billroth, al.), in support of which it is a mistake to appeal to Acts xvii. 31, 
where, owing to the connection, év stands in a wholly different relation from 
what it denotes here. Here the word év is selected in view of the following 
Kpithpia, the Christians, who are in future to judge, being conceived of, in 
order to the more vivid representation of the idea, as a judicial assembly. — 
avak. éote pit. éday.| Kpithpvov does not mean matter of dispute, case at lar, 
as most expositors (even Pott, Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, 
Ewald), wish to take it, with no evidence at all from the usage of the lan- 
guage in their favour, but place of judgment (tribunal, seat of justice, Jas. ii. 
6; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 767 B; Susanna, 49), or judicial trial which is held 
(judicium). Comp. the precept: py épyécbw éxi xpithpiov éOvixdv, Constitt. 
ap. ii. 45. Precisely so with dccacrfpiv. The latter sense, judicial trial 
(Lucian, bis accus. 25 ; Polybius, ix. 33. 12, xvi. 27. 2; Judg. v. 10; Dan. 
vil. 10, 26), is the true one here, as is evident from ver. 4. We render 
therefore : Are ye unworthy to hold very trivial trials? 7.e. trials in which 
judgment is to be given upon very insignificant matters (in comparison with 
the lofty and important functions which are to devolve upon you when the 
future judgment shall be held). The Vulgate translates freely but correctly 


1 Hence, too, it is unsuitable to transform (Flatt, Heydenreich). 
the concrete meaning of this question into 2 Comp. too, van Hengel, ad Rom. ii. 27: 
a general participation in the reign of Christ “vita vestra cum vita eorum comparanda,” 


\ 


130 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


as to the sense : ‘‘indigni estis, qui de minimis judicetis ?” According to 
Chrysostom and Theophylact, others understand here the heathen courts of 
justice, either affirmatively (so, as it appears, Chrysostom and Theophylact 
themselves ; so, too, Valckenaer, al.) or interrogatively (Billroth) : and that 
it is unworthy of you to be judged before courts of so low a kind? Similarly, 
Olshausen. But ver. 4 is decisive against this ; for we have there the very 
same thing which in ver. 2 is expressed by xpityp. éAay., described as Biurixa 
KpiTHpla. 

Vv. 8, 4. Climactic parallels to ver. 2, ver. 8 corresponding to the first half 
of the preceding verse, and ver. 4 to the second ; hence ver. 4 also should 
be taken as a question. — ayyéAove| angels, and that—since no defining epithet 
is added—in the good sense, not as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus) Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and most commentators 
make it, demons (Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. il. 4), nor good and bad angels (so Corne- 
lius 4 Lapide, al.; also, as it would appear, Hofmann). Other expositors, 
such as Grotius, Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, leave the point undecided. 
But comp. on iv. 9. That angels themselves shall come within the sphere 
of the judicial activity of glorified believers, is stated here as a proposition 
established to the believing consciousness of the readers,—a proposition, the 
ground for which is to be found in the fact that in Christ, whose glorified 
saints will reign with Him, is given the absolute truth and the absolute 
right, and, consequently, the highest judicial court of resort, even as regards 
the world of angels, from the jurisdiction of which not even the loftiest of 
created beingscan be excepted. There is nothing of a more detailed nature 
on this subject in the N. T. ; but comp. in general, Heb. 1. 14, according 
to which their service must be one for which they are to render an account ; 
and Gal. i. 8, according to which, in a certain supposed case, they would 
incur an dvd$eua.’ All modes of explaining away the simple meaning of the 
words are just as inadmissible as in ver. 2 ; as, for example, Chrysostom : 
érav yap ai dodparot duvaperc adtat éXatTov Huai evpetoory Exovoa TOv capKa TeEpI- 
BeBanuévov, yarerotépav Sdcovor dixyv ; Erasmus : ‘‘ vestra pictas illorum im- 
pietatem, vestra innocentia illorum impuritatem condemnabit ;” Calovius : 
the judicium is approbativum, making manifest, that is to say, before the 
whole world the victory of the saints already in this life over the devil ; 
Lightfoot : what is meant is, that the influence of the kingdom of Satan is 
to be destroyed by Christianity ; while Nésselt, Ernesti, and Stolz make it 
ability to judge, if an angel were to preacha false gospel (Gal. 1. 8). — pareve 
Biworixd]| is not to be included in the question, so that we should have to put 
only a comma after xpivoiyev (as Tischendorf does), For fiwrixa, things 
which belong to the necessities of this life, disputes as to the meum and tuum 
(comp. Polybius, xiii. 1. 3: rév Biorixkov ovvadAayuatwv), will not be among 
the subjects of the futwre judgment, to which xpiwodpev refers. We must 
retain, therefore, the mark of interrogation after xp:votwev (Lachmann), and 


1 Observe also the different classes of without ethical grounds. Moreover, the 
angels referred to in Rom. viii. 88; Eph. i. angels are not to be regarded as absolutely 
21; Col. i.16; 1 Pet. iii.32. Wecannotcon- good, Mark x, 18. Comp. on Col. i. 20. (0) 
ceive these distinctions in rank to exist ; 


bs 


CHAP. VI., 4. 131 
put a full stop after fior., so that pArvye Bur. may be seen to be the con- 
densed conclusio : to say nothing then of private disputes ! i.e. How far less can 
at be doubtful that we have to judge Biorixa ! Comp. Dem. Ol. i. (ii.) 28, and 
Bremi in loc. p. 159. See generally as to pfriye (found only here in the 
N. T.), nedum se. dicam ; Herm. ad Viger. p. 803 ; Schaefer, Appar. ad Dem. 
I. p. 265 ; Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 154 f. Regarding the relation of 
Bwwrixdc to the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 355.—The antithesis 
of ayyéAove and Bwrexé turns on this, that the former belong to the higher 
superterrestrial sphere of life (O¢ dv éxeivwv ob Kata Tov Biov' TobTov dvTwr, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia). The ayyéd. without the article is qualitative. 

Ver. 4. Biorixd pév obv x.7.A.| takes up Bor. at once again with emphasis. 
Comp. Herod. vil. 104: ra dv éxeivog avéyy’ avaoyer 0&8 TabTd det.—The sen- 
tence may be understood as a question (of astonishment), so de Wette, 
Tischendorf, Ewald, a/.; or as a reproachful statement, so Lachmann. The 
former, if r. éSou?. be correctly explained, corresponds best with the whole 
structure of this animated address (see on ver. 3). Mév ovv is the simple 
accordingly, thus.‘ Kpirjpia are here also not lawsuits, but judicia, as in ver. 
2. ‘The meaning therefore is: If ye then have courts of trial as to private 
matters, t.e. if ye are in such circumstances as to have to hold courts of that 
kind. Comp. Dem. 1153. 4 : éyévrwv tac dixac, qui lites habent administran- 
das. Hofmann’s rendering is a most involved one, making Bwr. xprr. 
predicate to rovc éZoud. év T. éxxd., and éav dy. a parenthetical clause, to which we 
are to supply as its object éouSernuévouc.? —xabilere| do ye—instead of 
taking some from among yourselves for this purpose—set those down, etc. % 
namely, upon the judgment-seat as judges, which follows from xpirfpua. 
Comp. Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873 E; Dem. 997. 23; Polyb. ix. 33.12. Itis 
the indicative, and the éfouSevAu. év tr. éxxd. are the heathen. So in substance 
Valla, Faber, Castalio, Luther, Calovius, Wolf, a/., including Pott, Flatt, 
Heydenreich, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
Neander, Weiss ; Osiander is undecided. To this it is objected that xadi<. 
does not suit heathen magistrates, and that év r. écxa. indicates the é£ovd. 
as members of the church (see: especially Kypke, II. p- 201). But neither 
objection is valid ; for the term xavigere is purposely selected as significant 
of the strange audacity shown in making the matter in dispute dependent 
on the decision of a heathen court, and that in special keeping with the 
contrast (rove éfouvd.), while the text does not give rove év rH éxxA. More- 
over, by r. é£ov0., Paul does not mean to describe the contempt for the hea- 
then as justifiable (Hofmann’s objection), but simply as existing, as a fact, 
however, the universal existence of which made the absurdity of the 
procedure here censured very palpable. Other interpreters make xavi¢ 
imperative, and the éovd. members of the church held in small account : 
take (rather) minimos de piorum plebe as arbiters.* But not to speak 


1 Introducing the more detailed develop- 
ment of the thought to which expression 
had been given already. See Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 181. 

2 How meaningless this would be! More- 
over, see below. Comp. also Laurent. 


neutest. Stud. p. 127. 

°3S0 the Vulgate, Peshito, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, 
Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, 
Wetstein, Hofmann, al. 


182 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of the rather generally supplied from imagination, nor of the fact that 
to designate those less capable of judging as tr. éovd. év rt. éxxd. would be 
far from wise, and likely to lend countenance to the specially Corinthian 
conceit of knowledge,—if this were the true sense, Paul would have had 
to lay stress upon the church-membership of the despised persons, and must 
have written at least rove éovd. tobe év 7. éxxa. For oi ttoud. év r. éxxA. are 
those who are despised in the church, which leaves it altogether to the context 
to decide whether they themselves belong to the church or not. Now, that 
the latter is the case here is shown by vv. 1, 2, and especially by ver. 5: 
ov éve év huiv, Arrangements of words like rove éoud. év rH éxxda. for rode év 
T. éxkA. éovF. are Common enough in classical writers also. See Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. —robrove| with an emphasis of disdain. See Dissen, 
ad Dem. de Cor. p. lii. f., 225 ; Kriiger, Aand. i. 6. 9 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
II. p. 460. 

Ver. 5. IIpdc évtp. tiv Aéyo] is to be referred, as is done by Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Neander, and Hofmann, to ver. 4, comp. xv. 34 (it is com- 
monly referred to what comes after), so that the following question unfolds 
the humiliating consideration involved in ver. 4. The address thus acquires 
more point and impressiveness. —otrwc] belongs not to Aéyw (Hofmann), 
but to ov fu «.7.2., and sums up the state of things : sie igitur, rebus ita 
comparatis, since you rove éovS_ernuévove xadifere. See Bornemann in Rosen- 
miiller’s Repert. Il. p. 245 ff.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 933. C. Fr. Her- 
mann, ad Lucian. de hist. conser. p. 161. It is otherwise understood by 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, al., including Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Ewald, who make it : so much, so completely is there lacking, 
etc. But itis only the definition of mode, not of degree, that will suit the 
absolute negation of this clause, intensified as it is by oidé ec. — Regarding 
évz, see on Gal. iii. 28. The cogd¢ carries point against the Corinthian self- 
conceit. — oidé cic] ne unus quidem. ‘*‘ Quod est vehementius,” as Erasmus 
well puts it, ‘‘cum sitis tum multi.” See on John i. 3, and Kriiger, Anab. 
iii. 1. 3; Bornemann and Poppo, ad Cyrop. ii. 1. 21. Comp. non ullus 
(Kiihner, ad Cic. Tuse. i. 89. 94) nemo unus (Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 137). 
Frequent in Isocr., see Bremi, I. Hxe. iii. —d¢ duvgoerac] purely future in 
force : who (as cases shall occur) will be able. — diaxpivac] to judge, as arbitra- 
tor. —ava péoov Tr. ad. avtov| between (LXX. Gen. xvi. 5; Ex. xi. 7; Ezek. 
xxii. 26; Isa. lvil. 11; Matt.: xiil. 25); Theocr. xxi.’ 2) pirapoyeat.. 
1, p. 503.; Polyb. x. 48. 1, v. 55. 7) Ais (Christian) brother. The ex- 
pression 7. ddeAgov, is meant to put to shame. The singular is used for 
this reason, that roi ddeAdov must mean the plaintiff who brings on the 
lawsuit (not the defendant, as Ewald would have it), between whom (and, as 
is obvious, the defendant) the arbitrator, called into requisition by the. 
bringing of the suit, pronounces his decision. Were the plural employed, 
that would indicate the two litigants generally, but not the party bringing 
on the suit in particular. Hofmann, contrary to the plain meaning of the 
words, understands the phrase of the se/f-decision of the individual demand- 
ing or refusing, namely, as to the point where his right ceased and his 
wrong began. In that case, Paul, if he wished to be intelligible, would 





et oS ea a 


CHAP. VI., 6-8. : 133 


have required to say something like this : dvaxpivac év éavt@ mpde Tov ddeAddv 
auTov. Moreover, ovdé ei¢ (Or oideic as Hofmann reads) would militate against 
this view, seeing that it contains what would be, according to ver. 1, a 
disproportionate accusation, if the meaning is not, ‘‘not a single man fitted 
to be an arbitrator.” — The reading, r. adeAdod x. Tod adeAdod avrov (Syr. Arr.), 
is an interpretation, although recommended by Grotius and again by 
Laurent. 2 

Ver. 6. Quick reply to the preceding question: Vo (see Hartung, 
Partikell. I. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 10 f.) brother goes to law with 
brother, and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) before unbelievers. How then can 
there be such a wise man among you? He would assuredly, by his inter- 
vention as arbitrator, keep the matter from coming to a lawsuit, which, as 
between Christian brethren, and that, too, before a heathen court, is alto- 
gether unfitting and unworthy ! Kpivera: in precisely the same sense as in 
ver. 1, xpiveoda: éxi Tov adixwr. (P) 

Ver. 7. Mév ody] as in ver. 4 ; it now brings under special consideration 
the foregoing dade1¢. pera ad. kpiverac—namely, as to what the real character 
of such a proceeding may be in itself viewed generally (62w¢ being taken as 
inv. 1), apart from the special element unhappily added in Corinth, éz? 
aricrwv. The puév corresponds as little (against Hofmann) to the 4424 which 
follows in ver. 8, as the péy in ver. 4 to the aaAd in ver. 6. The 767 is the 
logical already (‘‘ already then, viewed generally’), in reference to something 
special, by which the case is made yet worse. Comp. Hartung, Partikell, I. 
p- 240 f. —7rrnya] a defeat (see on Rom. xi. 12), 7.e. damage, loss, and that, 
according to the context, not moral decay (so commonly), or hurt to the 
church (Hofmann), or imperfection (Billroth, Riickert), or weakness (Beza) ; 
but, it redounds to your coming short of the Messianic salvation (see ver. 9).— 
éavrov| like a2A7Awv, but giving them to feel, more strongly than the latter 
would, the «impropriety which had a place in their own circle (Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. ii. 6. 20). —xpivara] as in Rom. v. 16, Wisd. xii. 12, legal judgments, 
which they had respectively obtained (fyere). —dduceiode . . . aroorep.] 
middles : to allow wrong and loss to be inflicted on themselves. Comp. 
Vulgate. See Bernhardy, p. 346 f. As to the matter itself, see Matt. v. 
39 fi. ; example of Jesus, 1 Pet. ii. 23. | 

Ver. 8. The question beginning with dcavi-in ver. 7 still continues : Why 
do ye not rather allow yourselves to suffer wrong, etc., and not, on your part, 
do wrong, etc.? This view, instead of the ordinary one, which makes 
ver. 8 an independent sentence like ver. 6, is necessary, because 7) oi« oidate 
in ver. 9 has its logical reference in diatz. The reference, namely, is this : 
“There is no ground conceivable for your not,” etc. (diati . . . adedAdotc), 
“unless that ye knew not,” etc. (7 ovx oidate). — Kal tovto adeAdotc] to whom 
nevertheless, as your brethren, the very opposite was due from you! With 
respect to the climactic, rovro, and that, see on Rom, xii. 11, and Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 147. 


1To take the sentence as a reproachful _ sterner and more telling than the common 
assertion (so Luther, Beza, Lachmann, way of viewing it as a question, which is 
Osiander, Hofmann), makes the passage adopted also.by Tischendorf and Ewald. 


134 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 9. "H ov« oidare] See on ver. 8. To supply an unexpressed thought 
here (‘‘ Do not regard the matter lightly,” Billroth ; ‘‘ This is a far greater 
gt7nua,” Ruckert ; that #rryyua to the church ‘‘ they could only fail to per- 
ceive, if they did not know,” etc., Hofmann) is just as arbitrary as to do so 
in ver. 2— ddvxoc] the general conception (under which the preceding ddcxeiv 
and axoor. are included): unrighteous, immoral. See the enumeration which 
follows. —@cov Baoa.| the Geo coming close after advo, and put first for 
emphasis (see the critical remarks). As to the truth itself, that ddcxia 
excludes from the Messiah’s kingdom, see on Gal. v. 21 ; and as regards 
what. is implied in the Messianic «Aypovoyia, on Gal. ili. 18 ; Eph. i. 11. — pp 
rAavaocve| for that moral fundamental law was more easily, it is plain, flung 
to the winds in frivolous Corinth than anywhere else! Possibly, too, some 
might even say openly : ¢cAdv0pwrog dv 6 Cede Kal Ayadoc, ov éEmeSépyerat ToI¢ 
rAnupeAnuacr uy On PoBnIGuev ? Chrysostom. Hence : be not mistaken (xAa- 
vaoSe, passive, as also inxv. 33 ; Gal. vi. 7; Luke xxi. 8; Jas. i. 16; comp. 
the active form in 1 John iii. 7), followed by the emphatic repetition of that 
fundamental law with a many-sided breaking up of the notion dd:xor into 
particulars, not, however, arranged systematically, or in couples, nor redu- 
cible, save by force, to any logical scheme ;’ in this enumeration, owing to 
the state of matters in the place, the sins of sensuality are most amply speci- 
fied. — répva, fornicators in general ; poryoi, adulterers, Heb. xili. 4. — 
etdwAod.| see on v. 11. — paraxoi] effeminates, commonly understood as gut 
muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the 
language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do 
not prove the point) ; moreover, such catamites (molles) were called xdépvoe 
or kivaidot. One does not see, moreover, why precisely ¢iis sin should be 
mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore : effeminate 
luxurious livers. Comp. Aristotle, Hth. vii. 7 : wataxd¢ kai tpvddv, Ken. Mem. 
li. 1, 20, also wataxéc, ii. 11. 10: rpvey 2 Kat padrdaxia, Plato, Rep. p. 590 
B. — dpcevoxoirac| sodomites, who defile themselves with men (1 Tim. i. 10 ; 
Eusebius, Praep. evang. p. 276 D). Regarding the wide diffusion of this 
vice, see the passages in Wetstein ; comp. on Rom. i. 27, and Hermann, 
Privatalterth. § 29, 17 ff. 

Ver. 11. How unworthy are such of your new Christian relations !— raira] 
of persons in a contemptuous sense: such trash, such a set. See Bern- 
hardy, p. 281. —7éc] more exact definition of the subject of 7re, namely, 
that all are not meant. It is the well-known oyjpua ka? odAoy Kal pépog 
(Kihner, II. p. 156). Comp. Grotius. Valckenaer says well : ‘‘ vocula rivé¢ 
dictum paulo durius emollit.” Billroth is wrong in holding (as Vorstius 
before him) that raird tuvec belong to each other, and are equivalent to 
roovrot. In that case rairé twa would be required, or roioi twec. See Ast, 
ad Plat. Legg. p. 71 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 2 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
Il. p. 882. — dredoto. x.r.2.] describes from step to step the new relations 
established by their reception of Christianity. First of all: ye washed your- 
selves clean, namely, by your immersion in the waters of baptism, from the 


1 Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung der Stinde, II. p. 29 f. 


to God (John iii. 5 ; Tit. ili. 5; Eph. v. 25, dydoy). 


CHAP. VI., 11. 135 


moral defilement of the guilt of your sins (you obtained, through means of 
baptism, the forgiveness of your sins committed before you became Chris- 
tians). (Q) Comp. Acts xxii. 16, ii. 38; Eph. v. 26 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Ob- 
serve the use of the middle, arising from the conception of their se//-destina- 
tion for baptism. Comp. éBarricavro, x. 2. We must not take the middle 
here for the passive, as most expositors do, following the Vulgate (so Flatt, 
Pott, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald), which in part arose—as in the case of 
Olshausen—from dogmatical preconceptions ; neither is it to be understood, 
with Usteri (Lehrbegriff, p. 230) and Riickert (comp. Loesner, p. 278), of 
moral purification by laying aside everything sinful, of the putting off the 
old man (comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff.), against which the same phrase in Acts xxii. 
16, and the analogous one, xafapicac, in Eph. v. 26, militate strongly. This 
moral regeneration exists in connection with baptism (Tit. 111, 5), but is not 
designated by aredoic., although its subjective conditions, werdvora and riori¢ 
are presupposed in the latter expression. The producing of regeneration, 
which is by water and Spirit, is implied in the jy:do0yre which follows : ye 
became (from being unholy, as ye were before baptism) oly, inasmuch, 
namely, as by receiving the dwped trod dyiov rvebuatog (Acts ii. 88) ye were 
translated into that moral frame of life which is Christian and consecrated 
Riickert and Ols- 
hausen take it in the theocratic sense: ‘‘ye became set apart, numbered 
among the ay.” Comp. Osiander, also Hofmann : ‘‘ incorporated in the 
holy church.” But the progression of thought here, which marks its advance 
towards a climax by the repetition of the a244, requires, not a threefold de- 
scription of the transaction involved in baptism (Calvin, Hofmann), but 
three different characteristic points, dating their commencement from bap- 
tism, and forming, as regards their substance, the new moral condition of 
life from which those who have become Christians ought not again to fall 
back. — édixaidbyre| ye were made righteous.' This, however, cannot mean 


the wmputative justification of Rom. iii. 21 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, 


with older commentators ; because, in the first place, this is already given 
in the daredotcacbe ; and secondly, because the éd:cacéOyre, if used in this 
sense, would have needed not to follow the dy:dc@yre, but to precede it, as 
in i. 30 ; for to suppose a descending climax (Calovius) is out of the question, 
if only on account of the areA0ic., which so manifestly indicates the beginning 
of the Christian state. What is meant, and that by way of contrast to the 
notion of adicia which prevails in ver. 9 f., is the actual moral righteousness 
of life,’ which has been brought about as the result of the operation of the 
Spirit which began with baptism, so that now there is seen in the man the 
fulfilment of the moral demands or of the dcxaiwua tod véuov (Rom. viii. 4), 
and he himself, being dead unto sin, dedicalwrat ard tie duaptiag (Rom. vi. 


1 {Beet says, with justice, “a solitary 
instance, probably, in the New Testament 
of this simplest sense.’? —T. W. C.] 

2 There is therefore no warrant for ad- 
ducing this passage, as is done on the Ro- 


man Catholic side (even by D6llinger), in 


opposition to the distinction between justi- 
fication and sanctification. Justification is 
comprised already in amedovc. Comp. 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. pp. 342, 345 ff. Its sub- 
jective basis, however, is one with that of 
sanctification, namely, faith. 


136 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


7), and édovad0yn rH dcxacocbvy (Rom. vi. 18), whose instruments his members 
have now become in the xavvéry¢ of the spirit and life (Rom. vi. 13). This 
SixawHjvar does not stand related to the dycacjva: in any sort of tautological 


sens ut is th 5 , of j nd in so far, certainly, is also 
e, but is the effect and outcome of it, and far, certainly, 1 


the moral continuatio justificationis (comp. Calovius), Rey. xxii. 11.—The 
thrice repeated aAAd lays a special emphasis upon each of the three points. 
Comp. Xenophon, Anadb. v. 8. 4; Aristophanes, Acharn. 402 ff. ; 2 Cor. ii. 
17, vi. 11; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. 
Symp. iv. 538; Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 841 [E. T. 898]. —év 7@ dvéuate 

. 70v| is by most expositors made to refer to all the three points. But 
since év TO mvebwate x.t.A. does not accord with dzedotc. (for the Spirit is 
only received after baptism, Acts ii. 38, xix. 5, 6; Tit. iii. 5, 6; the case 
in Acts x. 47 is exceptional), it is better, with Riickert, to connect év 76 
ovouate . . . jyuav simply with édccaé0., which best harmonizes also with the 
significant importance of the éd:caréOyre as the crowning point of the whole 
transformation wrought in the Christian. The name of the Lord Jesus, i.e. 
what pronouncing the name ‘‘ Kipvo¢ ’Iycotc”’ (xii. 8) affirms,—this, as the 
contents of the faith and confession, is that in which the becoming morally 
righteous had its causal basis (év), and equally had its ground in the Spirit 
of our God, since it was He who established it by His sanctifying agency ; 
through that name its origin was subjectively conditioned, and through that 
Spirit it was objectively realized. Were we, with Hofmann, to bring év 76 
dvouatt . . . Oeov Juov into connection with the révra pou éeorw which fol- 
lows, the latter would at once become limited and defined in a way with 
which the antitheses 442’ «.r.A4. would no longer in that case harmonize. 
For it is precisely in the absoluteness of the ravra wo éeorw that these an- 
titheses have their ethical correctness and significance, a3 being the moral 
limitation of that axiom, which therefore appears again absolutely in x. 23. 
— Observe, further, how, notwithstanding the ‘defective condition of the 
church in point of fact, the aorist jyidc0. and édicacdf. have their warrant 
as acts of God, and in accordance with the ideal view of what is the specifi- 
cally Christian condition, however imperfectly as yet this may have been 
realized, or whatever backsliding may have taken place. The ideal way 
of speaking, too, corresponds to the design of the apostle, who is seeking to 
make his readers feel the contradiction between their conduct and the char- 
acter which as Christians they assumed at conversion ; o¢ddpa évtpertTiKxoc 
éxhyaye Aéywv" évvofoate HAikwov buac éFeldeTo kaxOv 6 Cede x.T.A., Chrysostom. 
And thereby he seeks morally to raise them. 

Vv. 12-20. Correction of the misunderstanding of Christian liberty, as though 
fornication, equally with the use of meats, came under the head of things allow- 
able (vv. 12-17). Admonitions against fornication (vv. 18-20). 

Vv. 12-14. Connection and sequence of thought. Jn this new condition of 
life (ver. 11) all things are allowed to us, but they must be for our good,—all 
things allowed, but we on our part must remain free (ver. 12). Among these 
allowed things is the use of food, as what is in accordance with nature and ap- 
pointed by God merely for a time (ra Bpduata . . . Katapy., ver. 13). Wholly 
otherwise is it with the use of the body for fornication ; that is anti-Christian 


a 


CHAP. VI., 12-14. 137 


(rd dé cOua . . . cdpari, ver. 13), and contrary to the eternal destiny fixed by 
God for the body (ver. 14). —- Not without reason did Paul, when reckoning 
up the different forms of adccia in ver. 9, place ropveia first. Comp. v. 1; 2 
Cor. xii. 21. But Corinthian Epicureanism, starting from the Hellenic 
mode of viewing this matter, which was altogether very lax (Herm. Privat- 
alterth., § 29. 18 ff.), easily found for itself even a certain justification of 
fornication, namely, in the doctrine of Christian liberty in adiaphoris, the 
maxim of which is : rdvra pos éZeotv. Now we may infer from the passage 
before us that this erroneous justification had actually been brought forward, 
that more than one voluptuary in the church had, as Paul was informed, 
actually declared that just as satisfying the desire for food was an adia- 
phoron, so also was satisfying the desire for sensual pleasure by fornication. 
Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, 1 and 3; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 420 f. 
Olshausen, indeed, thinks that Paul would have given an absolute command 
to exclude all such persons from the church, and that therefore it is only 
the possibility of so gross an abuse of Christian liberty that is implied here. 
But the former is an arbitrary assumption,’ and the latter has these two 
considerations against it—first, that in no other Epistle does Paul touch on 
this possibility, although the opinion that licentious intercourse was allow- | 
able was widely spread among the Greeks and Romans ; and secondly, that 
the statement of the moral difference between the use of meats and whoredom 
is of too special a kind to be naturally accounted for in the absence of act- 
ual occasion. Neander, whose objections lose their force, if we only do not 
go the length of assuming that this adiaphoristic view of fornication had 
become universal in Corinth, or had been formally published and propa- 
gated there as a doctrinal tenet, is of opinion that Paul meant to begin here 
upon the theme of meat offered to idols (comp. x. 23), but was led on after 
the first half of ver. 13 to draw a contrast (perhaps in order to guard against 
a misunderstanding of his words, perhaps also in opposition to those who 
denied the resurrection) which conducted him so far away from his theme, 
that it was only in chap. viii. that he made his way back to it again from 
another point. But how arbitrary this is ! And how entirely unexampled 
a thing, that the apostle should so far forget himself, and write in a manner 
so irregular and open to misconception ! Chap. x. 23 lends no support to 
this exposition, for it is obvious that the same maxim could be made to 
apply in very many different directions. Riickert’s exegesis is only a little 
less violent ; he supposes that, in the question addressed to the apostle 
about the sacrificial meat, the party eating it had adduced the révra é£eorw 
in their favour, and that Paul had only transferred it here in order to guard 
against the abuse of it respecting fornication (in substance, therefore, coincid- 
ing with Olshausen). To the ordinary interpretation Riickert objects, that 
the Corinthians in their letter would certainly not have described the ropveia 


1 Olshausen reasons thus: Since invi. 9 — suffered persons guilty of such abomina- 


unnatural vices are named with the rest, tions to remain in the church. But in vv. 13 
we should have to conclude that the wavra ff. the apostle is speaking quite distinctly 
poe €€eoTe Was applied to these alsoin Cor- and constantly of the wopve‘a alone, not of 


inth ; now Paul would surely never have unnatural sins. 


138 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


as prevailing among them, nor would they have undertaken the defence of 
it to the apostle whom they knew so well. But this objection is unfounded; 
for from v. 1 we must assume that Paul had come to know of the state of 
morals at Corinth through oral reports, and consequently had not learned 
the abuse there made of the wdvta é&eoTwv through expressions in the Corin- 
thian letter (this against Hofmann also). According to Ewald, there had 
been doubts and debates concerning the obligation of the Jewish laws about 
food and marriage ; Paul therefore lays down in ver, 12 the principle which 
should decide all such cases, and then at once, in ver. 13, disposes shortly 
of the first point in dispute, in order, at a later stage (chap. viii.—x.), to 
speak of it more at length, and hastens on in ver. 13 ff. to the second point. 
Against this we may urge, first, that the first point was surely too impor- 
tant to be disposed of by so brief a hint as that in ver. 13 ; secondly, that 
the two halves of ver. 13 stand in an antithetic relationto each other, which 
gives the first half merely the position of an auziliary clause ; thirdly, that 
chap. vili.-x. do not deal with the question of food in general, but with 
that of eating sacrificial flesh in particular ; and lastly, that ver. 13 ff. have 
likewise quite as their special subject that of fornication. — rdavra pot é&eoTw] 
might be regarded as the objection of an opponent (so Pott and Flatt, with 
older expositors) ; hence also it is understood by Theodoret as a question. 
But this is unnecessary (for surely it is, in point of fact, a Christian, and in- 
deed a specially Pauline principle), and arbitrary besides, since there is here 
no formula of objection (such as épei¢ ody, or the like). Comp. on ver. 13. — 
It would be self-evident to the reader that zdvra meant all that was in itself 
indifferent (whatever was not anti-Christian). — oc] spoken in the character — 
of a Christian in general. Comp. ver. 15. Bengel says well : ‘‘Saepe Paulus 
prima persona singul. eloquitur, quae v¢m habent gnomes.” Comp. Gal. ii. 18. 
— ovugépec] is profitable. Thismust not be arbitrarily restricted either in the 
way of taking it as equivalent to olxodoyet (Calvin, al., also Billroth after x. 
23), or by confining it to one’s own advantage (Grotius, Heumann, Schulz, 
Olshausen). What is meant is moral profitableness generally in every respect, 
as conditioned by the special circumstances of each case as it arises. So, 
too, in x. 23. Theodore of Mopsuestia, it may be added, says rightly : 
ered yap ov Tdvta cupdépel, OffAov O¢ ob TaGL ypnoTéov, GAAG Toi¢ WdEhovor pévorc. 
—ob« éy| not I for my part. The subjection will not be on my side, but the 
things allowed will be what is brought into subjection. This tacit contrast 
is indicated both by the position of ot« éyé and by t7é two¢. The common 
interpretation : ‘‘ego sub nullius redigar potestatem” (Vulgate), does not 
correspond to the order of the words. — ééovovac0.] purely future in force : 
shall be ruled by anything whatever. This result, that on my part moral 
freedom should be lost through anything, will not ensue! Otherwise the 
thing would plainly be not allowed. I shall preserve the power of moral 
self-determination, so as to do or leave undone, just according to the moral 
relations constituted by the circumstances of the case, what in itself would _ 
be allowed to me. Comp. the great thought in ili. 22, and Paul’s own ex- 
ample in Phil. iv. 11, 12. Were rtivd¢ masculine (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, 
Vatablus, Ewald, al.), the meaning would then be, that in things indiffer- 


CHAP. ‘VI., 13. 139 


ent a man should not yield himself to be tutored and dictated to by others 
(Ewald). But, in point of fact, it is newter, being in contrast to the thrice 
repeated and emphatic rdavta. — The paronomasia in éeorw and é£ove. was 

emarked by expositors as early as Chrysostom and Theophylact. All isin 
my power, yet it is not I who will be overpowered by anything. Regarding ééov- 
o.dfev (which is not used in this sense by Greek writers), comp. Eccles. vii. 
19, vill. 8, x. 4 f. 

Ver. 13. Ty xovAig] se. fort, belong to, inasmuch, that is to say, as they are 
destined to be received and digested by the belly (the irodoyA tév oitior, 
Photius in Oecumenius). Comp. Matt. xv. 17. —roi¢ Bpdéuaccy] inasmuch 
as it is destined to receive and digest the food. — This reciprocal destina- 
tion according to nature is the jirst element, which, in its relation to the , 
second half of the verse, is intended to call attention to the fact, that the 
case of fornication is totally different from that of the use of food,—that 
the latter, being in accordance with tis destination, belongs to the category of 
the adiaphora ; while fornication, on the other hand, which is anti-Chris- 
tian, is contrary to the relation of the body to Christ. The second element 
(which, however, is very closely connected with the first), by which this is 
made manifest, consists in what God will hereafter do on the one hand with 
the xocAie and the Bpduac:, and on the other hand (ver. 14) in respect of the 
body’s relation as pertaining to Christ, which latter relation is imperishable, 
in contrast to the perishable nature of the things first mentioned. — 6 dé O¢d¢ 

. karapy.| 2.e. God, however, will (at the Parousia) cause such a change 
to take place in the bodily constitution of man and in the world of sense 
generally, that neither the organs of digestion as such, nor the meats as 
such, will then be existent. To such passing away is this relation destined 
by God! With respect to the glorifying of the body here indicated, comp. 
Matt. xxii. 80 ; 1 Cor. xv. 44, 51. Melanchthon aptly says: ‘‘ Cibi et ven- 
ter... sunt res periturae;... ideo sunt adiaphora ;” and Bengel: 
‘‘quae destruentur, per se liberum habent usum, Col. ii. 20 ff.” Comp. 
Castalio, and among more modern expositors, Schulz, Krause, Billroth, 
Rickert, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, 
Hofmann.’ Pott, Flatt, and Heydenreich (and see still earlier writers in 
Wolf) approximate to this view, but take 7d Bpduara . . . Karapy. as words 
of an opponent, the premisses of a conclusion as to the allowableness 
of fornication, which conclusion is impugned by Paul in the 7d éé 
cpa x.7.A. which follows. But the apostle fas not given the slight- 
est hint of this passage being a dialogue ; moreover, had it been so, he 
would have begun his reply ver. 13 with a444 again (as in ver. 12, ac- 
cording to this dialogistic view). Other interpreters, following Chrysos- 
tom and Theophylact, make the design of 6 62 Ozd¢ «.7.4. to be a warning 
against excess. Comp. Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, a/. But this, although 
in harmony with the d/Ad in ver. 12, would stand in no logical relation to 
the 6 d2 Ocd¢ «.7.2. of ver. 14, and thereby the inner connection of the whole 
' address (see above) would be broken up. — xa? rairyv nai ravta] Regarding 


1 Several of them, however, fall intothe to beat death, which cai tadz7a alone shows 
mistake of making the dale of the xatapy. to bé inadmissibie. 


140 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

the use of the double otrog for éxeivog . . . ovtoc, which is not common, see 
Bernhardy, p. 277. Comp. Josh. viii. 22 ; 1 Macc. vii. 46, ix. 17. —rd da 
caua| Paul cannot nameagain here a single organ ; the whole body is the. 
organ of fleshly intercourse :* see ver. 16. —7 ropveia] for fornication (con- 
ceived of as a personal power), for its disposal and use. — rw Kupiw] inas- 
much as the body is a member of Christ.? See ver. 15. —rwodpare] inas- 
much, namely, as Christ is destined (has it as His function) to rule and use 
the body as His member. ‘‘Quanta dignatio !” Bengel. Itis a mistake 
to make the phrase refer to the raising up and glorifying of the body, which 
it is the part of Christ to effect (Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Thomas, Grotius) ; 
for this would destroy the unity of mutual reference in the two clauses 
(comp. above, ra {Bpépuara x.t.A.), and, besides, the resurrection is brought 
forward afterwards as something separate from the preceding, and that, 
too, as the work of God (parallel to the 6 62 Oed¢ «.r.2. in ver. 18). 

Ver. 14. This is parallel in contents and form to the sentence, 6 dé Qed¢ 
.. . Katapyfoe., in ver. 138: Now God has not only raised up the Lord, but will 
raise up us also by His power. The body, consequently, has a destiny which 
stretches on into the future eternal aiév ; how wholly different therefore 
from the xoAia, that organ of temporal nourishment, which will cease to be ! 
—x«al tov Kip. wyeype] necessary assurance of what follows. See Rom. viii. 
11. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. 1. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 11, 14. — Kat jac éeyepei *] 
The bodily change in the case of those still alive at the time of the Parousia 
(xv. 51; 2 Cor. v. 2-4; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff.) did not need to be specially 
mentioned, since Paul was not here to enter into detail upon the doctrine 
of the resurrection. Comp. on Rom. viii. 11. He therefore, in accordance 
with the rv Kip. wyecpe, designates here the consummation of all things only 
a potiort, namely, as a raising up, speaking at the same time in the person 
of Christians generally (juac), and leaving out of view in this general expres- 
sion his own personal hope that he might survive to the Parousia. — The in- 
terchange of jy. and é&ey. (out of the grave, comp. é£avdortacic Tév vexpdv, 
Phil. ili. 11) is accidental, without any special design—in opposition to 
Bengel and Osiander’s arbitrary opinion that the former word denoted the 
Jirst-fruits, and the latter the ‘‘ massa dormientium.” *— aitov|—not atroi, 


1 Neither our text nor Luke xx. 35 gives 
any support to the assumption that those 


SIf é€eye(pee were the true reading (but 
see the critical remarks), the tense employ- 


partaking in the resurrection will be with- 
out sexual distinction. The doing away of 
the corAia_ refers simply to the cessation of 
the earthly process of nutrition; it does 
not affect the identity of the body, which 
Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 459), without warrant 
from Scripture, pronounces to be indepen- 
dent of the external continuance of distinc- 
tion between the sexes. Such assertions 
lead to fantastic theories vrép 0 yéypanrat. 

2 [** Whoever eats food, of whatever kind, 
puts it to its designed use: whoever com- 
mits fornication uses his body in a way for 
which it was never designed.” Stanley.— 
TW] 


ed would inthat case bring before us as 
present what was certain in the future. If 
e€jyerpe Were correct, we should have to 
interpret this according to the idea of the 
resurrection of believers being implied in 
that of Christ, comp. Col. ii. 12. 

-4 Against this view may be urged the 
consideration, in itself decisive, that in the 
whole of chap. xv. éye(pw is the term con- 
stantly used both of Christ’s resurrection 
and that of believers ; whereas éfeye.pw oc- 
curs in all the N. T. only here and Rom. ix. 
17 (in the latter passage, however, not of 
the rising of the dead). 


CHAP. VI.,; 15, 16. 141 
: 

because uttered from the standpoint of the writer—applies to God, not to 
Jesus (Theodoret) ; and dud tHe dvvdu. air. Should be referred not to both 
the clauses in the sentence (Billroth), but, as its position demands, to éeye- 
- pet ; for to the ground of faith which the latter has in kat tov Kiprov jyerpe, 
Paul now adds its undoubted possibility (Matt. xxii. 29), perhaps glancing 
purposely at the deniers of the resurrection, ri aécoriotia tie To’ rowdvvTog 
toxboc Tove avTiAéyovtac érvotouifwr, Chrysostom. 

Vv. 15-17. That fornication is not an indifferent thing like the use of 
meats, but anti-Christian, Paul has already proved in vv. 13, 14, namely, 
from this, that the body belongs to Christ and is destined by God to be 
raised up again. How deserving of abhorrence fornication is on that account, 
he now brings home to the mind of his readers in a striking and concrete 
way. The immorality of fornication is certainly taken for granted in ver. 
15 f., yet not in such a manner as to make Paul guilty of a petitio principit 
(Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 538 f.), but on the ground of the proof 
of this immorality already given in vy. 18, 14. In ver. 15 f. the apostle does 
not seek to prove it over again, but to teach the Corinthians to abhor the sin. 
— ov oldare x.t.2.] He here takes up once more, and exhibits with greater 
fulness, the thought in ver. 13, 7d céua tH Kupiv, as the basis for the follow- 
ing warning : dpac obv x.t.2. — wédn Xpiorod| Inasmuch, that is to say, as 
Christ, as the Head of the Christian world, stands to it in the closest and 
most inward fellowship of organic life (see especially Eph. iv. 16), and forms, 
as it were, one moral Person with it ; the bodies of the individual believers, 
who in fact belong to the Lord, and He to them for this world and that which 
is to come (ver. 13 f.), may be conceived as Christ’s members, just as from 
the same point of view the whole church of Christ is His collective organ, 
His body (Rom. xii. 5; Eph. i. 23; Col. i. 18, ii. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 13, a.). 
— dpac| Shall I then take away, take off, the members of Christ, and, etc. 
Billroth sees in dpac simply minuteness of description, indicative of deliber- 
ation, as in mp?. But this is to confound it with AaBdv. The Vulgate 
renders rightly : tollens ; Luke vi. 29, xi. 22; John xi. 48 ; Plato, Pol. ix. 
p. 578 EH, Tim. p. 76 B ; Sophocles, Trach. 796 ; 1 Macc. viii. 18. What 
is depicted is daring misappropriation. The plural ra yédn denotes the cat- 
egory, for the matter ‘‘non quanta sit numero, sed qualis genere sit, specta- 
tur,”. Reisig, Conjec. in Aristoph. p. 58. Since the Christian’s body is among 
the members of Christ, the ropvetew is a deed whereby a man takes away 
the members of Christ from Him whose property they are, and makes them 
a harlot’s members. — rojow] future: Shall this case occur with me? shall I 
degrade myself to this? so far forget myself? MRiickert and Osiander hold 
that it is the aorist subjunctive: should J, etc. (see Herm. ad Viger. p. 
742). It is impossible to decide the point. 

Ver. 16. *H ovx oidare] ‘‘ Or if this pA yévorro (conveying, as it does, a 
negative to that question) still appears to you to admit of doubt, even after 
the statement of the nature of the case given in ver. 15, then ye must 
be ignorant that,” etc. This 7 otx oidate cannot correspond with the ov« 
oidare of ver. 15 (Hofmann: ‘‘cither the one or the other they must be 
ignorant of,” etc.), for arc 6 KoAAéu. «.7.2. manifestly refers to the conclusion 


142 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO TOE CORINTHIANS. 


from the preceding expressed in épac obv, and therefore is subordinated to 
the question answered shudderingly with pi yévorro. In ver. 19, too, the 7 
ov« oidate refers to what has just before been said. — xoAAdpu.] who joins him- 
self to (P27), indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp. Ecclus. 
xix. 2; Gen. li. 24 ; Ezra iv. 20. —r% répvy] the harlot with whom he deals 
(article). — év cud éotiv] 78 a single body ; previous to the xcoAddo@ac he and 
the person concerned were two bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot— 
an united subject—is one body. — écovra yap «.7.A.] Gen. il. 24 (quoted from 
the LXX.) speaks, indeed, of wedded, not unwedded, intercourse ; but 
Theodoret rightly points out the paritas rationis: &v yap Kat TovTo Kakeivo TH 
oboe Tov Tpaypyatoc. — dnoiv| Who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely, 
God ; the utterances of the Scripture being His words, even when they may 
be spoken through another, as Gen. 1. 24 was through Adam. Comp. on 
Matt. xix. 5. Similarly Gal. iii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 8; Heb. viii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 
27. ‘H ypae7, which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be 
suggested by the context, asin Rom. xv. 10. Rtickert arbitrarily prefers 
TO mvevua.’— ol dbo] the two in question. 'The words are wanting in the 
Hebrew text, but are always quoted with it in the N. T. (Matt. xix. 5 ; 
Mark x. 8 ; Eph. v. 31) after the LXX., and also by the Rabbins (e.g. Beresh. 
Rabb. 18) ; an addition of later date in the interests of monogamy, which, 
although not expressly enjoined in the law, came by degrees to prevail, in 
accordance with its adumbration from the first in the history of the creation 
(Ewald, Alterth. p. 260 f.). — ele capxa piav] TH way, See on Matt. xix. 5. 

Ver. 17. Weighty contrast to 6 Koddou. rH mépvy Ev cud éort, NO longer 
dependent on 671. — KoAAacba: TH Kupiv, an expression of close attachment to 
Jehovah, which is very common in the O. T. (Jer. xiii. 11 ; Deut. x. 20, 
X1. 22 ; 2 Kings xviii. 6 ; Ecclus. ii. 3, al.). It denotes here, inward union 
of life with Ohrist, and is selected to be set against the xoAA. 7H répvy in ver. 
16, inasmuch as in both cases an intima conjunctio takes place, in the one 
Jleshly, in the other spiritual. We are not to assume that Paul was thinking 
here, as in Eph. v. 23 ff. (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. v. 4), of the union with 
Christ as a marriage (Piscator, Olshausen, comp. also Osiander); for in that 
mystical marriage-union Christ is the Bridegroom, filling the man’s place, 
and hence the contrast to KoAA. tH xépvy would be an unsuitable one. 
Olshausen’s additional conjecture, that when the apostle spoke of ri répvy 
there floated before his mind a vision of the great whore who sitteth upon 
many waters (Rev. xvii. 1), is an empty fancy. —év rveipd éotc] conceived 
of as the analogue to év céua. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17. This is the same Unio 
mystica which Jesus Himself so often demands in the Gospel of John, and 
in which no ethical diversity exists between the rveiua of the believing man 
and the rveiua of Christ which fills it ; Christ lives in the believer, Gal. ii. 
20, as the believer in Christ, Gal. iii. 27, Col. iii. 17, this being brought 
about by Christ’s communicating Himself to the human spirit through the 


1To take it impersonailly; “itis said,’ as quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer, 
in 2 Cor. x. 10, according to the well-known Gr. p. 486 [E. T. 656] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
usage in the classics, would be without  p. 117 [E, T. 184]. 
warrant from any other instance of Paul’s 


CHAP. VI., 18. 143 
power of the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. 9-11. Now, be it observed how, by 
fleshly union with a harlot, this high and holy unity is not simply put in 
hazard (Hofmann), but excluded altogether as a moral ¢mpossibility ! Comp. 
the idea of the impossibility of serving two masters (Rom. vi. 16), of fellow- 
ship with Christ and Belial, and the like. It is unnecessary to say that this 
has no application to union in marriage, seeing that it is ordained of God, 
‘Cob verbum, quo actus concubialis sanctijicatur,” Calovius. Comp. Weiss, 
bibl. Theol. p. 421. 

Vv. 18-20. Direct prohibition of fornication, strengthened by description 
of it asa sin against one’s own body, which is in fact the temple of the Holy 
Spirit, etc. 

Ver. 18. Sebyere tiv ropv.] Inferred from the foregoing verses (13-17), 
but expressed in all the more lively way from not being linked to them by 
any connective particle. ‘‘ Severitas cum fastidio,” Bengel. — rav dudpryjua 
«.T.4.]| asyndetic corroboration of the preceding prohibition. Paul does not 
say anything here incapable of being maintained in its full stringency of 
meaning (Riickert, de Wette), nor is there any reason for taking ray, with 
Michaelis, Flatt, Pott, and others, in a popular sense, as equivalent to 
almost all (comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Melanchthon : ‘‘cum quodam 
candore accipiatur de lis, quae saepius accidunt”’) ; but the truth of his 
words is based on the fact that every other sinful act (dudprnua), if it has to 
do at all with the body, works upon it from without, and consequently 
holds a position in reference to the body external to the same. The sinner 
makes that which is not of the body, but outside of it, as eg. food and 
drink, to be the instrument of his immoral act, whereby the audptnua, 
viewed in its relation to the body, comes to stand éxré¢ rot cuatoc, and has 
there the sphere of its occurrence and consummation. This holds true even in 
the case of the suicide, whose act is in fact a sinful use of external things, 
the instance of a man’s voluntarily starving himself not excepted (against 
Hofmann’s objection), for this is accomplished by the abuse of abstinence 
from food (which is equally an external relationship), and therefore éxré¢ rob 
oauaroc. How entirely different from the case of all such other sinful acts 
stands the state of things with unchasteness, where there is sin, not é«rd¢ r. 
See below. In connection with this passage, 
expositors indulge in many arbitrary and sometimes very odd interpretations * 


aduatoc, but ei¢ 7d idtov cdua ! 


1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, a., 
single out as the characteristic point—con- 


The body in tts totality, he holds, is meant, 
inasmuch as it is one body with the harlot, 


trary to the literal tenor of the passage— - 


the defilement of the whole body by forni- 
cation, on which ground a bathis taken 
subsequently. This latter point Theodoret 
also lays stress upon, explaining, however, 
the expression by the fact that the man 
who commits other sins ov tocavrny aiodnouw 
AapBavet THs apaptias, While the profligate, 
on the other hand, evdis peta thy apaprtiav 
aigtavetat Tov Kakod Kal avTO TO Goma BoedVT- 
TEeTal, 
whole body has been taken up again by 


Baur (in the ¢theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 540 f.). 


Chrysostom’s interpretation of the. 


and in virtue of this unity the fornicator 
has the object of his sin not without him- 
self, but in himself, and sins against the 
body identified with his own self. But all 
this ts not in the text, and no reader could 
read it into the text. Hofmann, too, im- 
ports what is neither expressed in the 
words themselves nor suggested by the an- 
tithesis,—the obscure notion, namely, that, 
as in the case of the glutton, after complet- 
ing the deed “‘the thing of his sin does not 
remain with him’ (2). 


144 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


and saving clauses. Among these must be reckoned the exposition of 
Calvin and others, by way ef comparison: ‘‘ secundum plus et minus.” 
Neander, too, imports a meaning which is not in the words, that fornication 
desecrates the body in its very highest and most enduring significance (namely, 
as the sum of the personality). According to Chr. F. Fritzsche (Wova Opuse. 
p. 249 f.), what is meant is that all other sins do not separate the body of 
the Christian from the body of Christ, this taking place only through for- 
nication (ver. 15). But the general and local expression éxrd¢'r. cépartde 
gory does not correspond with this special and ethical reference, nor are we 
warranted in attributing to one of such ethical strictness as the apostle the 
conception that no other sin separates from the body of Christ, ver. 9 f. ; 
Rom. vili. 9, al. —6 éav x.7.2.] which in any case whatever (Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 819) a man shall have committed. Respecting édv, instead of dy, 
after relatives, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 380]. — éxrd¢ r. od. éorev] inasmuch 
as the sinful deed done has been one brought about outside of the body. — ei¢ rd 
idcov cdua] For his own bodily frame is the immediate object which he 
affects in a sinful way, whose moral purity and honour he hurts and wounds 
by his action. Comp. on eic, Luke xv. 18. He dishonours his own body, 
which is the organ and object of his sin. Comp. Beza. The apostle says 
nothing at all here of the weakening effect upon the body itself (Athanasius 
in Oecumenius, and others). 

Ver. 19 justifies the duaprdve: in respect of the specific description of it 
given by ei¢ 76 idiov cdua. ‘‘ Commits sin,” I say, against his own body ; or, 
in case ye doubt that, and think perhaps that it does not matter so much 
about the body, know ye not that (1) your body (i.e. the body of each one 
among you, see Bernhardy, p. 60) is the temple (not : a temple, see on ili. 16) 
of the Holy Spirit which is in you (Rom, viii. 11) ; and that (2) ye belong not 
to your own selves (see ver. 20)? Fornication, therefore, so far as it affects 
your own body, is a desecration of what is holy, and a selfish rebellion 
against God your Lord. —oi éyere axd Oeoi] gives edge to the proof,’ and 
leads on to the second point (oi« éoré éavrdv). Od is under attraction from 
dy. xv. (Winer, p. 154 [E. T. 203]). — kai ob «.7.A.] still dependent upon 6érz, 
which is to be supplied again after «ai, not an independent statement (Hof- 
mann, who takes the cai as meaning also), which would needlessly interrupt 
the flow of the animated address. 

Ver. 20. For (proof of the ov« éoré éavr.) ye were bought, i.e. redeemed 
from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 18 ; from the wrath of God, Eph. i. 3 ; 
from the bond of the guilt of sin, Rom. iii. 19-21; and acquired as God’s 
property (Eph. ii. 19, i. 14), for @ price, which was paid to God for your 
reconciliation with Him, namely, the blood of Christ, Matt. xxvi. 28 ; 
Rom: iti,.24 f; 5,2 Cor. v.18 ff. ;:\Eph. 11.7 3 1: Pet. ae ieee 
We have the same conception in Acts xx. 28, although there, as also in 
1 Cor. vii. 23, and Tit. ii. 14, the church is represented as the property of 


1 Chrysostom: xat tov Sedwxdta rédercer, the idea of the body being the temple of the 
DWnrdv Te 6400 Tomy Tov axpoaTyy, Kai doBov Holy Spirit, in opposition to the abuse of 
Kal TO peyéder THs wapakatadykys kai tH dido- it in debauchery, comp. Herm. Past. Sim. 
Timia Tov Twapaxatatewéevov, Further, as to Veuve 

e 


—— 2 


NOTES. 145 


Christ ; but see John xvii. 9.— rife] strengthens the 7yopacA. as the op- 
posite of acquiring without an equivalent. Comp. vii. 23. The common 
exposition (following the Vulgate) : magno pretio, inserts without warrant 
what is not in the text (so, too, Pott, Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Olshausen, 
Ewald). Comp. Herod. vii. 119, and the passages in Wetstein ; and see 
already Valla. — dofdcate 07 «.7.A.] Do but glorify, etc. Thisis the moral 
obligation arising out of the two things grasped by faith as certainties, 
ver. 19. Regarding the 0% of urgency with imperatives, see on Acts xiii. 2. 
—év 76 opm. bu.| not instrumental, nor as in Phil. i. 20 (comp. Rom. xii. 
1), but so expressed, because the exhortation proceeds upon the footing of 
the whole tenor of ver. 19, in which the body is described as a temple; in 
your body, namely, practically by chastity, the opposite of which would be 
an ariuafew tov Oedv (Rom. ii. 23) in His own sanctuary ! 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(0) The Judging of angels. Ver. 3. 


The author is undoubtedly correct in saying that here, according to the con- 
stant usage of Scripture, good angels are meant ; but he speaks rashly in hold- 
ing that the distinctions among them (‘ principalities, powers,” etc.) are made 
upon ethical grounds. Not a hint of this is given in the Bible, where through- 
out the entire body, when described at all, is noted as holy. It is far more 
natural to suppose that these creatures of God, like all other intelligent 
creatures of whom we have knowledge, differ in capacity, and therefore occupy 
different positions and render different services. The difficulty in the passage 
which arises to most readers at first blush is obviated by the unity of Christ 
with his church triumphant—a thought which is ever present to the Apostle’s 
mind when he thinks of the future, In this sense redeemed humanity will be 
the judge of the spiritual world and of whatever it contains. This is aided by 
the consideration Hodge advances, that to rule and to judge are often in Script- 
ure convertible terms. To rule Israel and to judge Israel mean the same 
thing. Thus is explained the promise to the apostles in Matt. xix. 18, of 
‘sitting upon twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’’ So in 
the present case, ‘‘ Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” is equivalent 
to * Know ye not that we are to be exalted above the angels and preside over 
them ; shall we not then preside over earthly things ?”’ 


(P) ‘Going to law before unbelievers. Ver. 6. 


A litigious spirit is known to have characterized the Greek nation from the 
time of Aristophanes downwards ; and itis not wonderful that this should have 
cropped out in the Christians of Corinth. What the Apostle reproves is that be- 
lievers, instead of settling their disputes among themselves, dragged one another 
before a heathen tribunal, and so brought discredit upon themselves and the 
worthy name by which they were called. That this does not teach that believers 
now are never to appeal to a civil court is obvious, because such courts are in no 


1 How high a price it was (1 Pet. i. 19) would suggest itself readily to the readers, 
but is not implied in the word itself. 


146 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


sense heathen, and Paul himself did not hesitate to invoke the protection of the 
laws of the land against the injustice of his countrymen. But it does teach 
with emphasis the wrongfulness and the meanness of cherishing a litigious 
spirit. 

(Q) ‘* Ye were washed.” Ver. 11, . 


It does not seem at all necessary to interpret this of baptism, as the author 
does. It may indeed have an allusion to the rite, but is certainly not formally 
identified with it. The figure contained in the word is one often occurring in 
Scripture—Ps, li. 7; Isa. 1.16; Rev. xxii, 14 (true text). All three expressions 
are to be taken simply as a varied utterance of the same truth, and their force 
is well given by Stanley thus: ‘‘Ye were washed, and so cannot be again unclean ; 
consecrated, and so cannot be again polluted ; made righteous, and so cannot be 
unrighteous.’’ The attempt of Hodge and others to make thelast verb mean 
forensic justification is inconsistent with its position here, for according to the 
Apostle’s doctrine everywhere, sanctification and moral cleansing follow justi- 
fication, and are dependent upon it, while here they would be represented as 
conditioning it, which is simply impossible. 


CHAP. VII. 147 


CHARTER VIZ: 


Ver, 3. d¢ecAjv] Elz. and Matt. read dge:Aouévny edvorav, against decisive evi- 
dence. Erroneous explanation. — Ver. 5. Tj vyoreia wai after cyoAdonre (not 
oxvoAdatnre, Elz.) is an inappropriate addition in the ascetic interest ; and 
ovvépyeode, in place of 7re, is a gloss. — Ver. 7. ydop] AC D* F G &*, min. It, 
Copt. Goth. and several Fathers have dé. Approved by Griesb., and adopted 
by Lachm. Tisch, and Riick. The ydp was an incorrect gloss upon the dé. — 
Instead of 6¢ . . . dc, read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the majority of 
the uncials,d... 4. In ver. 10 again, Lachm. and Riick. put yopigecar in 
place of yopiodivat (with A DEF G); but, considering the weight of authority 
on the other side, a@vévai must dissuade us from the change. — Ver. 13. odtoc] 
approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. The evidence 
against avtéc¢ (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read atry in ver. 12 
also (with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.). —av7rév] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. have 
Tov avdya, approved by Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. Adrév has 
crept in from uniformity to ver. 12. Had there been a gloss, we should have 
found a corresponding variation of avryy in ver. 12 as well. — Ver. 14. avdpi] 
The uncials from A to G, %*, Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read 
adeAgG. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. 
*Avdpi is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 15. 7udc] Tisch. has dude, but the evi- 
dence for it is weaker ; and tiudc would easily come in from ver, 14. — Ver. 17. 
Kvptoc] Elz. and Matt. read Oedc, and, after KékAnkev : 6 Kvpioc. Against con- 
clusive testimony ; Kivpioc was glossed and dislodged by Oedc¢, and then after- 
wards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have 6 Kvpuoc 
. . . 6 Kipioc 6 Oedc. — Ver. 18. Instead of the second ti¢ éxA7n, Lachm. Tisch. 
and Riick. read «éxAerai tic, with A B &, min., and additional support from D* 
F and G, which have ti¢ xéxA. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the 
first clause of the verse. — Ver, 28. yjuyc] B & have yaujoy¢ ; and, since in A we 
have yayjoy, andin DEF G AaBn¢ yvvaixa, Which is plainly a gloss, the evi- 
dence preponderates in favour of yauwjon¢ (Lachm. Tisch.) ; yjuy¢ arose out of 
what follows. — Ver. 29.! After ddeApoi Elz. has 67, against A B K L &, min. 
Baschm. Syr. p. Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al. An exegetical 
addition. —7rd Aoizév éotiv] A B &, min. Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr. 
Basil, Cyr. have éore 76 Aourdv. Now, seeing that D* has simply éori Aoirév, 
and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al. have éovi, 
Aotrév gor, the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Received 
text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that rd Aowréy was regarded as 
belonging to what had gone before, —a connection which is expressly set forth 
in several codd. vss. and Fathers (see Tisch. and Reiche). As to whether a 
comma should be placed between éoriv and 76 Aourdv, which is done by Lachm. 
Tisch. Riick, and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse. — Ver, 31. 7@ 


1 Respecting ver. 29, see Reiche, comment. crit. I. p. 178 ff. 


148 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Koo tovtTw] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. read rdv xéouov, with A B &, also D* F 
G 17, which, however, add roirov. The dative was a correction to bring it 
into accordance with the common usage ; rodrov (rovrw) again in addition from 
what follows. — Vv. 32-34. dpécer] Lachm. and Riick. have dpéoyn, with A B D E 
FG & 21 46, Eus. al. But it was very natural that, in place of the future (K 
L, almost all the min. Clem. Or. Meth. Ath. Epiph. and many others), the more 
usual subjunctive should creep into the text. — Ver. 34.1 wewépiorar k.T.A.] Kai 
Hewéptorae occurs in A B D* §&, min. Syr. p. Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and 
many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd. 
Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome (who expressly states that this connection is according 
to the original), Pel. Bede, al. On the other hand, it is construed with what 
follows by Syr. Arr. Arm. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Basil, Oecum. Theophylact, 
Tert. Ambr. Aug. Sedul. and Latin codices in Jerome. The xai after pepép., 
which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*¥#* FG KL 8, 
min. Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al. Going on with the verse, we find 7 dyawoc after 
yvr7 in A B &, some min, Vulg. and several Fathers ; while, on the other hand, 
there is no 7 dyauoc after tap%évoc in Vulg. Jerome, Aug. Euseb. al. We have 
the choice left us, therefore, between the following two readings (and modes 
of connecting the words): (1) [xai] peuépiotae kai 7 yvv) Kai % mapbévoc: @ dya- 
jog flepyuevd «.7.A,, and (2) Kai pweuépiorar. Kat @ yur) 4 dyapuoc Kai 4 rapbévocg 4 
dyauoc pepiyvd x.t.A. The latter is adopted by Lachm. and Riick. ; but is not 
to be preferred, because it offers no difficulty whatever, and, consequently, no 
occasion for any change, The former, on the contrary (found in D*** F G@ K 
L, and many min. It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stum- 
bling in the peuwépcora:, which was either not understood at all, or misunderstood. 
Where not understood, it was left out altogether (so even Cyprian: ‘ uxori. 
Sic et mulier et virgo innupta cogitat,’’ etc.); where misunderstood (that 
pepiCeco8ar must mean curis distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. 1. 7), it was con. 
nected with the preceding clause by «ai (which appears, therefore, to be spuri- 
ous). This made yvr7 be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.); and hence 7 dyapoc 
was either pushed forward (Vulg.), or else left in connection with zapOévoc, 
and the same word added to yuvy7 as well (A B 8, Lachm.). Scholz, too, has 
the words as in our reading,*® but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method 
of punctuation : TH yvvarki* weuépiotar. Kain yuri kai 7 mapbévog H dyauog mepiuve 
x.T.A, — Ver. 34. 7a Tod Kéouov] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved 
of by Buttmann (Studien u. Krit. 1860, p. 370). — Ver. 37. édpaiog: év rH kapdia] 
Lachm. reads év 77 xapd. avtod édpaioc, which has conclusive evidence in its 
favour ; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting édp. (as 
Griesb. does) or avrod (deleted by Tisch.). As regards édpaio¢ in particular, 
which is omitted only by F G, It. Aeth., it was very likely to be left out as 
being unessential, so far as the sense was concerned, after éoryKev. — aitod Tov] 
is deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. in accordance with A B 8. In place of 
it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has év r# idi@ xapdia. The evi- 
dence, however, for airod rov (the uncials D E F G K L) is too weighty and 
uniform, while rod again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and 
such a natural occasion for writing id/g instead of airod presented itself in the 


1 Respecting ver. 34, see Reiche, Comment. ed by Tisch. Elz. varies from it only in 
crit. I. p. 184 ff. omitting the kat after pewéprorar, Which was 
2 It is defended also by Reiche and retain- justly reinserted by Bengel. 


CHAP, VII., 1. 149 


preceding idiov OeAju., that our conclusion is to retain the Recepta. — Instead 
of raei, AB 8 617 37, Copt. have rorjoe: (as also where it occurs for the sec- 
ond time in ver. 38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Rick. (B 617 37 have 
mowmoe. also the first time in ver. 38). But in default of internal reasons for a 
change, these witnesses, having no support from the Fathers, and next to none 
from the vss., are too weak to warrant it. — Ver. 38. 6 éxyauifwv] Lachm. and 
Riick. have 6 yauifwv tiv wap§évov éavrov. Now it is true that yauigwv occurs in 
ABDE N17 23 31 46, Clem. Method, Basil., and rv rap), éavr. (or Tr, éavr. 
map9., so Riick.) in much the same codices and Syr. Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth. 
Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil. al. But the whole reading is manifestly of 
the nature of a gloss, éxyauifwv, being explained sometimes by yapifwv trav rapd. 
éaut., sometimes by the addition 'to it of r7v napd. éavt. The latter phrase 
crept into the text beside éxyayu., the former in place of it. — Instead of 6 dé read 
kai 6; so Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Riick. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence. 
The antithesis gave rise to the 6 dé. — Ver. 39. After dédevat Elz. has voy, 
against A B D* Fa! &**, min. with many vss. and Fathers. Taken from Rom. 
vii. 2, although Reiche doubts this. —édav dé] Tisch. has éay dé kai, upon 
insufficient evidence ; the «ai might easily come in through writing the next 
syllable twice over, or by a clerical error such as kexornOn (So F G). 


ConTENTS.—Instructions regarding marriage, matrimonial intercourse, 
and divorce (vv. 1-17) ; then an excursus upon the theme that the reception 
of Christianity ought not to alter the outward relations of life (vv. 17-24) ; 
lastly, about virgins—as to how far celibacy in general is advisable for both 
sexes (vv. 25-34), and whether a father does better to let his daughter re- 
main single, or give her away in marriage (vv. 35-88). The same advice, 
to remain unmarried, is given to widows (ver. 39 f.). Comp. on this chap- 
ter, Harless, die Hhescheidungsfrage, 1861. 


Ver. 1. Aé] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter 
from Corinth. — éypdawaré yor] Differences of opinion must have prevailed 
respecting the points discussed in this chapter, and these had been laid 
before the apostle by the church. In particular, there must have been at 
Corinth opponents of marriage. This is wrongly denied by Baur, who imag- 
ines merely an attempt made among the Corinthians to defend fornication 
from the analogy of marriage ; of which there is not a trace in the apostle’s 
words. Whether, now, the doubts in question, more especially as to the 
lawfulness of marriage,’ were mixed up with the subsistence of the parties at 
Corinth, it is impossible to make out with any certainty, although in itself 
it seems likely that a matter of opinion so important practically would be 
turned, with other points, to account in the interest of party. Grotius 
holds that those who raised such points of debate were ‘‘ sub Christianorum 


1 Fragment of a Codex of the 7th century. from the perverted moral extravagance of 
See Tisch. Monum. sacr. ined. p. 460. others, who, because of the intercourse of 
2If the opinion that fornication was sex involved, counted marriage also an im- 
lawful (vi. 12 ff.) arose at Corinth out ofan pure thing, and would have the maxim: 
Epicurean libertinism, the doubts regard- Kadov avdpwrw yuvatkds py amtecdar, to be of 
ing the lawfulness of marriage must have absolute and universal application. 
flowed from the opposite source, to wit, 


' 


150 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
nomine philosophi verius quam Christiani.” But such of the Greek philoso- 
phers as advocated views adverse to marriage did so upon the ground of 
the cares and dangers connected with marriage (see Grotius in loc.), not 
from any doubt regarding its morality, as, according to vy. 28, 36, must 
have been the case among the Corinthians. Further, it is certain that the 
adversaries of marriage could not be of the Petrine party ; for Peter himself 
was married (Matt. viii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5), and the Judaizing tendency, 
which cannot be proved to have had an Essene-Ebionitic character in Cor- 
inth (Schwegler, I. p. 163 f."), could be nothing else but favourable to 
marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae, p. 189). Olshausen (comp. also Jaeger, 
Kniewel, Goldhorn, Ewald) decides for the Christ-party, in whose idealistic 
tendency he considers there were contained the germs both of moral indif- 
ference and of false asceticism. But this party’s idealism in general is a 
pure hypothesis, which is as little established by proof as their Hssenism 
in particular, to which Ewald traces back the rejection of marriage among 
the Corinthians.” In the last place, that it was the followers of Paul (Storr, 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Neander, Ribiger, Osiander, Maier, Riickert re- 
fuses to give a decision), who—in opposition, perhaps, to the Petyine party, 
and appealing to the celibacy of Paul himself, he never having been mar- 
ried (see on ver. 8)—overvalued celibacy, and pronounced marriage to stand 
lower in point of morality and holiness, is the most likely view, for this 
reason, that the apostle’s sentiments upon this point were in themselves, as 
we see from the chapter before us, quite of a kind to be readily misunder- 
stood or misinterpreted by many of his disciples—more especially in parti- 
san interests—as being unfavourable to marriage.* It merely required that 
men should overlook or wish to overlook the conditional character of the 
advantages which he ascribes to single life. The opponents of marriage 
referred to in 1 Tim. iv. 3 were of a totally different class. Those with 
whom we are now concerned did not forbid marriage and so endanger 
Christian liberty (otherwise Paul would have written regarding them in 
quite another tone), but simply undervalued it, placing it morally below 
celibacy, and advising against it, hence, too, as respects married persons, 
favouring a cessation from matrimonial intercourse and even divorce (vv. 3 
ff., 10 ff.). — xardv avOporw| With respect to what you have written to me 
(repi x.7.A., absolute, as in xvi. 1, 12; Bernhardy, p. 261 ; Bremi, ad De- 


1 One section of the Essenes even declared 
itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii. 
8.18; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 185. 

2 According to Ewald (comp. too, his 
Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 508 f.), the Christ- 
party appealed to the example of Christ in 
regard to this point especially. But had 
that been the case, we should surely have 
found some traces of it in Paul’s way of 
discussing the question, whereas, on the 
contrary, the reference which he deems it 
due to make israther to his own example 
(ver. 7). Looking at the matter as a whole, 
it is prima facie improbable that any one 


should have adduced the unwedded life of 
Christ as an argument against marriage— 
in the first place, because He, as the incar- 
nate Son of God, held too lofty a place in 
the believing consciousness to present a 
standard for such earthly relationships ; 
and secondly, because He Himself in His 
teaching had so strongly upheld the sanc-: 
tity of marriage. 

3 Just as they were often misinterpreted, 
as is well known, in after times in the 
interests of the celibate system, of nunner- 
ies and monasteries. 


OMAP. Vile, 4. 151 


mosth. Ol. p. 194 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 170), it is good for aman, etc., that 
is to say : it is morally salutary * for an (unmarried) man not to toucha woman. 
That, in a general theoretical point of view, is the prevailing axiom, which 
I hereby enunciate as my decision ; but in a practical point of view, seeing 
that few have the gift of continence, the precept must come in: because of 
fornication, etc., ver. 2. In Paul’s eyes, therefore, the yuvaind¢ py dxrecbat 
is, indeed, something morally salutary in and by itself ; but this affirmation, 
made from a general point of view, finds its necessary limitation and restric- 
tion in the actual facts of the case, so that just according to circumstances 
marriage may be equally a duty. Hence the caddv «.7.4. is not appropriate 
for the defence of celibacy in general (‘‘ si bonwm est mulicrem non tangere, 
malum ergo est tangere,” Jerome, ad Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius 
i, Lapide in loc.). — azreofa:, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse 
(Geny x 16,5 xxi, 11; Prov. vi. 29). See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 
204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general yvvarkd¢ 
axtecOa, to be treated of in detail hereafter. MRiickert, failing to recognize 
this progress in the apostle’s argument (so, too, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1839, p. 444), holds that the reference is to sexual intercourse in marriages 
already formed (and that nothing is said of entering into matrimonial con- 
nections). Did Paul, as Kling supposes, here give it as his opinion that 
‘a chaste life, as of brother and sister, was more consonant, on the part of 
married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling” (xa%év) ; this would be a 
sentimental e707, which ought not to be attributed to him, whether consid- 
ered in itself, or in view of his high appreciation of marriage as a union of 
the sexes (2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. vii. 4; Eph. v. 28 ff.).— The axiom is enun- 
ciated without a uév, because it is, in the first place, conceived simply in itself ; 
the limitation which follows is added with dé by way of antithesis. Comp. 
on Eph. v. 8, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 483. Precisely so, too, in ver. 8. 

Ver. 2. In order, however, that offences in the way of fornication (see on this 
plural of the abstract, Ktihner, II. p. 28 ; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.) 
may be avoided in practice, the rule holds good: Let every man have? a wife of 
his own (properly belonging to himself in marriage), etc. . On did, comp. 
Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Riickert, de Wette, and Maier are wrong in 
maintaining that éyérw is permissive merely,—Riickert, indeed, making it so 
only to the extent of a man’s retaining his wife. The latter is disproved by 
vv. 9, 10, and the former by the fact that the immediately following drod:- 
dérw in ver. 3 is not to be taken as permissive, any more than the yayyodtwcav 
which answers to éyérw in ver. 9. It is opposed, further, by the considera- 
tion that dvd rac topreiac is a determining element of a moral kind, which 
must therefore necessarily lead not to amere permissibility, but to a positive 


1That we have in xadodv x.t.A4. a moral ly stated.—T. W. C.] 

axiom, a statement of what is ethically 2 This éxevv is nothing else but the simple 
salutary, not a mere utilitarian principleof habere (to possess) ; it does not mean inter- 
practical prudence, is clear, especially from tercourse in marriage, which ought to be 
the comparison in the last clause of ver. 9, continued (Kling, Heydenreich, following 
and from vv. 32-34, where the ethical benefit Cameron and Estius). Paul comes to that 
of it is explained. [See the limitation of | only in ver. 3. 

xadov in ver. 26, where the reason is formal- 


152 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


obligation (already noted by Erasmus). This injunction, however, is 4 
moral rule, to which exceptions may occur from higher considerations in 
cases wheré no danger of fornication is apprehended and there is the ‘‘ do- 
num continentiae,” as Paul himself had shown by his own example,—in 
which, nevertheless, no support whatever is given to any sort of celibacy 
enforced by law, a thing which, on the contrary, our text decidedly dis- 
countenances. Riickert thinks further that Paul exhibits here a very poor 
opinion of marriage ;* and Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 15 ff.) has more 
fully developed this idea so as to assert that the apostle’s view of marriage 
is at variance with the moral conception of it which now prevails.’ Comp. 
also Rothe, Hthik, III. p. 614. But can it be true, then, that he, who looked 
upon the union with Christ itself as the analogue of wedded life, valued 
marriage only as a ‘‘ temperamentum continentiae” ? No | what he does is 
this : out of all the different grounds on which marriage rested in his mind, 
he selects just that one which, in the first place, specially concerned his 
readers (remember the xopivd¢ec8a), and in the second place, had peculiar 
weight in connection with the nearness of the Parousia. That approaching 
catastrophe might furnish him with sufficient reasons for leaving unmentioned 
those higher ends of marriage which reached forth into a more remote fu- 
ture, and confining himself to the immediate practical relations of the brief, 
momentous present. See ver. 26 ff. Keeping in view the present avdyxy, 
the near approach of the Lord, and the necessity, therefore, of an undivided 
surrender to Him, Paul had, wnder these given circumstances, recognized in 
the state of single life what in and by itself was kaddv avOporw, if only no 
fornication and heat were conjoined therewith. It is from this point of view, 
which was presented to him by the then existing condition of things (and 
hence without at all contradicting Gen. ii. 18), that the apostle handles the 
subject, discussing it accordingly in a special aspect and from one particu- 
Jar side, while the wider and higher moral relations of marriage lie beyond 
the limits of what he has now in hand,—Observe, further, how sharply and 
decisively the expression in ver. 2 (comp. Eph. v. 22, 25) excludes not only 
concubinage and sexual intercourse apart from marriage generally, but also 
all polygamy. 

Vv. 3, 4. The occasion for this injunction, which otherwise might very 
well have been dispensed with, must have been given by the statement in 
the letter from Corinth of scruples having arisen on the point. See on ver. 
1.— tiv ddeagv| the due in the matter (Rom. xiii. 7), i.e. according to the 
context, as euphemistically expressed, the debitum tori.2 See ver. 4. The 
word does not occur at all in Greek writers ; see Lobeck, a4 Phryn. p. 90. 
Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. —} yvv7 rod idiov obu. K.T.A. | 


1Comp. in opposition to this, Ernesti, in Philo, de Abr. p. 584), but drAdrys (Homer). 
Hithik des Ap. Paulus, p. 115 f. piéts, gvvovoia. The author of the gloss, 

2If we adopted the common reading tyv therefore, must either have misunderstood 
opecdAou. evvotav, We Should not take it, with THv operdnv, or, understanding it rightly, 
Grotius, a/., in the same sense as given have used a wrong expression to explain 
above, but generally, with Calvin and _ it. The reading ddeAouevyny tiuyv in Chrys- 
others, as benevolentiam. For the expression  ostom points to the former alternative. 
for that special idea is not evvora (not even . 


CHAP. VII., 5, 6. 153 


Explanatory of ver. 3. The wife has no power over her own body, namely, as 
regards cohabitation, but the husband has that power ; likewise (éuoiwc) also, 
on the other hand, the converse holds, so that ‘‘ neutri liceat alteri conjugale 
debitum poscenti denegare,” Estius. Corresponding statements of the 
Rabbins may be seen in Selden, waor. Hebr. ili. 6. 7. — Bengel says happily 
respecting idiov, that it forms with ob« éfovordfer an elegans paradozon. 

Ver. 5. Withhold not yourselves from each other, unless it were perhaps (nisi 
forte, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Luke ix. 13) that ye did so as occasion emerged 
(av), by agreement for a time (supply aroorepare aAAgA. ; see on Luke ix. 18). 
The obvious meaning is euphemistically expressed by droorep.; dyav Toivuv 
apuodiog tovro Téleckev éxi TOV Ob CvUPdVAC THY éyKpaTerav aipovuévov, Theodoret. 
— iva cyoddonrte k.7.A. | iva introduces the design of the concession just, made éx« 
ovudav. tpo¢-kaipdv : in order that ye may have free leisure for prayer— 
may be able to give yourselves to it without being drawn away and dis- 
tracted by sensual desire and the pleasures of sense. What Paul means is 
not the ordinary praying of the Christian heart, which ought to ascend 
ddiateittoc (1 Thess. v. 17 ; Eph. vi. 18), but such extraordinary exercises 
in prayer as they might have determined specially to devote themselves to 
for a longer period (a series of days). We are not to assume that such do- 
mestic devotions, as the apostle here plainly supposes to be engaged in by 
husband and wife in common, had been already then connected with Chris- 
tian festivals ; probably they were still entirely dependent upon the wants 
and wishes of individuals. But the idea of cohabitation being excluded for 
a time by religious exercises, is found both among the Jews (Ex. xix. 15 ; 
1 Sam. xxi. 4) and the heathen. See Wetstein and Dougt. Anal. II. p. 111 
f. Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 673: Katpd¢ yap cvvovoiag yuvatkd¢ abrod, Kat 
Kalpo¢g éyKpateiag sic Tpocevynv avTov. — Kal radw jre| still dependent on iva, 
indicates ceuvdc the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With 
respect to éxi 70 ai76,’ comp. on Acts i. 15. — iva py recpaty x.7.4.] design of 
the cat mad. . . qre: in order that Satan may not tempt you to sin (to 
breach of the marriage-vow) on account of your incontinency, because ye are 
incontinent ; for ‘‘Satanas vitiorum scintillas excitat,” Grotius. ’Axpacia, 
which occurs again in the N. T. in its older form of dxpére:a, Matt. xxiii. 25, 
comes from dxparh¢ (kpareiv), and is the opposite of éyxpdreca. See Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 524 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 461 B. Riickert conjectures 
that the word means : not mingling in matrimonial intercourse (on account of 
your non-participation therein). This is quite against usage ; for dxpacia 
(with the a long, from dxparoc), in the Ionic form axpyoin, means bad mixture, 
as opposed to eixpacia. See Theophrastus, ¢. pl. iii. 2.5; Dio Cassius, 
Ixxvii. 22. Paul had reason enough to affirm incontinency of the Corinthians 
generally, and to call their attention in warning to this lack of moral strength, 
on which the devil would base his attempts to find access to them with his 
temptations. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11. 

* Ver. 6. Toiro] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmiiller), 
which it does not suit ; nor to ver, 2 (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama, 


1 Erasmus remarks rightly : ‘‘ ut intelligas, eos ante fuisse separatos thalamis.” 


154 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Baur, Hofmann) ; nor to all that has been said from ver. 2 onwards (Bengel, 
Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Rickert, Osiander), for vv. 2-4 contain precepts 
actually obligatory ; nor to «. wdAw éxi 7rd aird #re (Origen, Tertullian, Je- 
rome, Cornelius a Lapide, a/.), which is but a subordinate portion of the 
preceding utterance. It is to this utterance : yu) aroorepeite. . . axp. budr, 
which directly precedes the rovro, that it can alone be made to refer without 
arbitrariness,—an utterance which might have the appearance of an émirayf, 
but is not intended to be such. What Paul means is this: Although I say 
that ye should withhold yourselves from each other by mutual agreement only 
perhaps for the season of prayer, and then come together again, so as to es- 
cape the temptations of Satan ; yet that is not to be understood by way of 
command, as if youmight not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period 
éx cuudaovov, but by way of indulgence (‘‘ secundum indulgentiam,” Vulgate), so 
that thereby concession is made to your lack of continency, it is allowed for. 
Theophylact puts it well : ovyxataBaiver th aobeveia dudv, and Erasmus : ‘ con- 
sulo vestris periculis.”” —ovyyvéuy occurs here only in the N. T. (Ecclus., 
pref. i. and iii. 13), but very often in Greek writers,—not, however, in the 
LXX. It means invariably either forgiveness, or, as here, forbearance, indul- 
gence, yroun Kpitixy Tov éxveckod¢ 6904, Aristotle, Hth. vi. 11. Hammond and 
Pott transgress the laws of the language by making it the same as xara ray 
éuyv yvounv. So even Valckenaer ; comp. Calovius, Flatt, Heydenreich, al. 
Ewald, too, renders without any support from the usage of the language : 
“Capith the best conscience.” 

Ver. 7. Ido not say by way of command that you should withhold your- 
selves only for the time of prayer and then be together again ; but indeed 
(dé) I wish that every one had the gift of continency, as I myself, and so 
could restrain himself, not merely at such isolated periods for some particu- 
lar higher end ; still (and that justifies what I said : xara ovyyvépny) this gift 
is not vouchsafed to all. There is no more ground for supposing that pév 
should be supplied (after 2éyw) in connection with this dé, than there is in 
ver. 2 (against Riickert). — d¢ cai éguavtév] as also I myself, that is to say, 
endued with the donum continentiae, év éyxpareia, Chrysostom. See what fol- 
lows. He does not mean his state of single life, but its charismatic basis. 
The «ai is, as for instance in Acts xxvi. 29, the quite commonly used kai of 
comparison. — ydapioua] a special endowment bestowed by divine grace, jitting 
him for the purposes of the kingdom of God. Comp. on xii. 1-4; Rom. xii. 
6. It is of course, and necessarily (because communicated through the 
Spirit), conceived as existing within the church. The words ravra¢ avOpd- 
move do not contradict this ; for Paul could most warrantably wish to all 
men that gracious gift, which he as a Christian was conscious that he pos- 
sessed, and as to which he knew that even within the Christian pale it was 
vouchsafed to one and withheld from another. — 6 pév obtw¢ «.7.A.] is not to 
be understood as if the first otrwe meant the gift of continence, and the 
second a man’s suitableness for wedded life (de Wette, with older commen- 
tators, beginning with Theodoret and Theophylact), but in a quite general 
sense : the one has his peculiar gift of grace after this fashion, the other in 
that ; the one so, the other so. Under this general statement, the possession 


OWAPH VIIA, 5 85°9. * 155 


of continence, or some other gracious endowment in its place, is included. 
As to the double oitwc, comp. LXX. 2 Sam. x1. 25: roré pév obtw¢ Kal roré 
obtw¢ Kataddyera 7 poudaia, also Judg. xviii. 4; 2 Kingsv. 4; 2Sam. xvii. 15. 
It is not so used in Greek writers. 

- Vv. 8, 9. Aéyw dé] leads on from what is contained in ver. 7 (from the 
subjective wish of the apostle and its objective limitation) to the rules 
flowing therefrom, which he has now to enunciate. Riickert holds that the 
transition here made by Paul is from the married to the unmarried. But 
were that the case, roic dé dyduorg Would require to stand first (comp. ver. 
10) ; the emphasis is on Aéyw. —roi¢ aydpuoic] What is meant is the whole 
category, all without distinction, including both sexes, not simply widowers ; * 
for the phrase opposed to it, roi¢ yeyauyxdor, in ver. 10, embraces both sexes ; 
- and hence ayay. cannot apply to the unmarried men alone (Riickert). The 
additional clause, x. taic yfpaic, by no means justifies a restrictive rendering ; 
for in it the cai does not mean also (Hofmann), but, as the connective and, 
singles out specially from the general expression something already included 
in it : and in particular the widows. The idiom is an ordinary one both in 
classical and N. T. Greek (Matt. vili. 33; Mark xvi. 7; and often else- 
where) ; see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11, 713. Comp. here Soph. 0. R. 1502 : 
xépoove d0aphvat kayauouvge. It was a special wish of Paul’s, therefore, that the 
widows should remain unwedded, doubtless in the interests of the church 
(Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Tim. v. 9 ff.). —xadov (as in ver. 1) atroic, sc. gore 3; comp. 
ver. 40. — éav pweivwow x.t.A.| if they shall have remained as I also (have remain- 
ed), i.e. unmarried. The opposite of this is yauyodtwoav, ver. 9. The o¢ 
«ayo therefore receives here from the context a different meaning than in ver, 
7. Luther, Grotius, and others infer from this passage that Paul was a 
widower ;° so, too, Ewald. But this conclusion rests upon the assumption, 
which is linguistically inadmissible, that dyduoe denotes widowers alone 
(i.e. xjpor) ; and, moreover, would not be asafe inference even were the 
assumption sound. Acts vii. 58, moreover, is against this ; for one could 
not place Paul’s marriage after the stoning of Stephen. — oi« éypatebovrar] 
to be closely joined together : ave incontinent. See Hartung, Partikell. I. 
p. 122 ; Maectzner, ad Antiph. p. 267; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274. The 
verb éyxparebecOa (Ecclus. xix. 6) is foreign to the older Greek, although this 
precise phrase : ovk éyxpar., is sanctioned by Thomas, p. 30, and Phryn. p. 
442. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. l.c. —yaunodr.| Regarding the later form of 
the aorist éydunoa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — rvpovcba] to be in a 
jiame, of vehement emotions (2 Cor. xi. 29 ; 2 Macc. iv. 38, x. 85, xiv. 45 ; 
of love, Anacreon, x. 13) ; it means here, ‘‘ occulta flamma concupiscentiae 
vastari,” Augustine, de sancta virginit. 34. Comp. Suicer, Thes. II. p. 895 ; 
from the Rabbins, the history of Amram in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 190 ; from 
the classics, Jacobs, Del. Hpigr. v. 34. — xpeicoor| not because it is the least 


1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Es-  theancient church was that Paul was never 

 tius, a., including Pott, Heydenreich, Bill- married (Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostom, 

roth, Ewald. al.). Thecontrary is stated in Clem. Alex. 
2 The prevalent and correct tradition of (in Eus. ZH. ~&. iii. 30). 


156 * PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
of two evils (Riickert, Kling ; comp. Estius), but because to marry is no sin 
(vv. 28, 36), while to burn is sinful (Matt. v. 28). 

Ver. 10. But to those who have married ; this is opposed to the yauyodro- 
cav, Which referred to future marriages. Accordingly, just as yaunodr. ap- 
plied only to Christians of both sexes leading a single life, so yeyauykéor, 
too, refers exclusively to married persons both of whom were Christians. 
It is perfectly correct, therefore, to designate the married persons, where 
one party in the union was not a Christian, by roi¢ Aouroic, ver. 12 ; for, apart 
from the cases discussed down to ver. 12, there are no others remaining to 
be spoken of except those living in mixed marriage. Riickert understands 
toic yeyaunkdoe to mean specially the newly married people; Paul, he holds, 
has a particular case in view, in which a single man perhaps had married a 
widow, which had been disapproved of by some ; and, because the apostle 
had given an opinion in ver. 8 unfavourable to such marriages, he must 
now forbid the dissolution of a union of that sort when once formed. But 
the fact of the ayduo. and the widows being coupled together in ver. 8 lends 
no support whatever to this, for ayduae applies to both sexes. Moreover, 
were the perfect participle, which is the present of the completed action, 
meant here to convey the notion of ‘‘newly married,” this would need to 
be indicated either by some addition (such as vewori), or undoubtedly at 
least by the context. The fact, again, that Paul speaks first and chiefly of 
the wife (which Riickert explains on the ground of the wife having desired 
a separation), may very reasonably be accounted for, without supposing any 
special design, in this way, that the cases in which a wife separated herself 
from her husband presented to the Christian consciousness the most anoma- 
lous phenomenon in this sphere, and notwithstanding might not unfrequent- 
ly occur in the wanton city of Corinth even within the Christian society.’ 
This is quite sufficient, without there being any need for assuming that the 
apostle had been questioned about some case of this kind (Hofmann), particu- | 
larly as the passage itself gives no sign of any such interrogation, but simply 
disposes of the point in the evenly course of the discussion regarding mar- 
riage, and with a view to its completeness. — oi« éy, dAW 6 Ktpioc| The negation 
is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands 
Christ had given concerning divorce, Matt. v. 31 f., xix. 3-9 ; Mark x. 2- 
12; Luke xvi. 18. Hence é Kipwc, sc. wapayyéAaer, for the authority of 
Christ lives on in His commands (against Baur, who infers from the pres- 
ent, which is to be supplied here, that Paul means the will of Christ made 


1 That we are to ascribe the tendency to 
such separation precisely to devout enthusi- 
asm on the part of Corinthian wives leading 
them to shrink from matrimonial inter- 
course (de Wette, comp. Hofmann, p. 146), 
is a view which is inadmissible for this 
reason, that Paul, having before him such 
a mere error of feeling and judgment, 
would have made a disproportionate con- 
cession to it by saying mevetw dyapnos, The 


state of morals at Corinth is explanation 
enough, more especially in connection with 
the easy and frivolous way in which 
divorces took place in Greek social life 
generally (Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxx. 
14-16), not merely by dismissal on the part 
of the husband (amoréumecv), but also by de- 
sertion on the part of the wife (amodAcimecv) 5 
comp. Bremi, ad@ Dem. I. p. 92. 


CHAP. VII.,; 11. 15% 


known to him by inspiration). It is otherwise in 1 Thess. iv. 15. As re- 
gards the éyé, again, Paul was conscious (ver. 40) that his individuality was 
under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here 
and in vv. 12, 25, not between Ais own and énspired commands, but between 
those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those 
which Ohrist Himself supplied by His objective word. (rR) Since, now, the 
veda Ocod in no way differs from the rveiya Xpiorov (Rom. viii. 9-11), 
Kupiov évroAai (xiv. 87 according to the Text. recept.) could be predicated of 
the former class of precepts also, although neither in the same sense as of 
the latter, in which Paul’s own subjectivity had no share whatever, nor with 
the same force of absolute obligation ; but, on the contrary, only in so far 
as the other party recognizes them as évroAd¢ Kupiov (xiv. 37). — py yopiobjvac} 
let her not be separated, which, however, is not purely passive here (as in 
Polybius xxxil. 12. 7), but means : let her not separate herself. Isae. viii. 
36, p. 73. For the rest, vv. 13, 15 prove that this phrase and jp adiévar in 
ver. 11 are not so different, that the former can be used only of the wife and 
the latter only of the husband. 

Ver. 11. From édv to xaradd. is a parenthesis pure and simple, disjoined 
from the rest of the sentence which continues with «cai dvdpa. But in case 
she should perhaps (édv dé) even (kai, 1.e. in fact, actually ; see Hartung, Par- 
tikell. I. p. 182 f.) be separated (have separated herself) ; in this Paul is not 
granting something in the way of exception, as though the preceding in- 
junction were not to be taken too strictly (which is set aside at once by ov« 
éy@, Gav 6 Kop., ver. 10), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly 
arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lord’s just adduced. The 
édv kai therefore, with the dé of antithesis, introduces, as in ver. 28, an oc- 
currence which will possibly be realized in the experience of the future (Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 834; Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 367]). This in opposition 
to Riickert, who maintains that the words refer to that specific case (see on 
ver. 10), and mean: Z/, however, she should perhaps have already separated 
herself before receiving this decision ; and likewise to Hofmann, who ren- 
ders : if such aseparation has actually already taken place within the church, 
thereby presupposing that such a thing will henceforth never take place _ 
there again. — pevérw dyayuoc| assumes that her marriage is not to be looked 
upon as really dissolved ; hence she would be guilty of adultery should she 
contract another union. Comp. Matt. xix. 9.— 7%] or else; comp. on ix. 
15. — xatudiayfrw] passive, leaving it undefined as to who was the active 
subject in the case (see Buttmann, I. p. 868 ; Winer, p. 245 [E. T. 828]) : 
let her be reconciled, be friendly again with her husband. The voluntary sep- 
aration of the wife from her husband is, in fact, just the cancelling of her 
peaceful relation to him, which is to be restored again. — rai dvdpa yor. pH 
agiévat| and that a husband put not away a wife, send her from him, separate 
himself from her. Comp. Herod. v. 29: axévra ratrnv tHv yvvaixa. This 
clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamai’s doctrine) : rapexro¢ 
Adyov ropverdc, Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, does not occur in Luke xvi. 18 or Mark 
x. 11. We are not warranted in supposing that Paul was not aware of this 
exception having been recognized by Christ, or that he had perhaps never 





158 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO TIE CORINTHIANS. 


heard of it at all, for the simple reason, that the validity of this ground of 
divorce was self-evident. Comp. on Matt. v. 82. 

Ver. 12. The Aaoi are those who, before their conversion, had entered 
into marriage with a non-believer, so that one of the two had become a 
Christian and the other not. See on ver. 10.—oiy 6 Kip.] For, as respect- 
ed such marriages, Christ had given no command. He had no occasion to 
do so. Observe how suitably Paul refrains-here from again using rapay- 
yédhw. — ovverdoxei] approves with him (comp. on Rom. i. 32), joins in ap- 
proving ; for Paul takes for granted that the Christian partner on his side 
approves the continuance of the union.’ It is alien to the scope of the pas- 
sage to hold, with Billroth, that in cvvevd. is implied the contempt of the 
heathen for the Christians. Regarding oixeiv pera, to dwell with, of living 
together in marriage, see Seidler, ad Hur. El. 99 : év yauorg CevyzOeicar oixetv, 
comp. 212.—It may be noted, moreover, that ver. 12 f. does not give per- 
mission to a Christian to mgrry a non-believer. ‘‘Non enim dixit : si quis 
ducit, sed: si quis havet infidelem,” Pelagius. epi tov tpd kypbypatoc 
ovvagbévtav én, Theodorct. 

Ver. 13. Kai ovtoc] a common turn of expression (instead of d¢ «.7.2.) in 
connection with «ai. See on Luke x. 8 and Kiihner II. p. 526. —- py) agiéro 
t. avdpa] let her not put away her husband, not send him from her, To trans- 
late otherwise (let her not leave him) is, in view of ver. 12, altogether 
arbitrary. The Vulgate renders correctly : ‘‘non dimittat virum.” ‘The 
apparent unsuitableness of the expression is happily explained by Bengel 
(on ver. 10): ‘‘ Separatur pars ignobilior, mulier ; dimittit nobilior, vir ; 
inde conversa ratione etiam mulier fidelis dicitur dimittere, et vir infidelis 
separari, vv. 18, 15.” In the mized marriage Paul regards the Christian 
partner, even when it is the wife, as the one who, for the sake of Chris- 
tianity, would have to send away the non-believer, were this in accordance 
with Christian principles. But these do not permit of it, and so the Chris- 
tian wife is not to send away the non-believing husband, if he is willing to 
dwell with her; that would be on her part a presumptuous violation of 
duty. Comp. Harless, Hhescheidungsfr. p. 85. This view of the apostle’s 
has no connection with the right conceded even to wives among the Greeks 
and Romans of divorcing themselves from their husbands (loose principles 
on this subject were held also among the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, Hor. p. 
191). But certainly Paul did not regard the Christian partner in a mixed 
marriage as the one who was to rule in general (in opposition to Olshausen) ; 
the head in every marriage, if it was to continue at all, was, in his view, 
according to Gen. iii. 16, the husband. 1 Cor. xi. 8, xiv. 34; Eph. v. 22; 
Goi mE RLS se Timea bar 

Ver. 14.* Hor—this justifies the injunction given in vy. 12, 13—the unholi- 
ness of the non-believing partner is taken away in virtue of his personal connec- 


1 Hence the compound ovvevdoret is used evdoxet, according to B (in opposition to 
rightly and of deliberate purpose in the Buttmann in the Stud. u. K7rit. 1860, p. 369). 
second part of the statement also, although 2 Comp. on this verse, Otto against Adre- 
there the husband is the subject, and it nunciation, 1864. 
ought not to be supplanted by the simple 


CHAP. VII., 14. 159 
tion with the believer ; he is sanctified—this sanctification having its causal 
basis in the person of the Christian consort with whom he stands in married 
union, and the possible stumbling-block of self-profanation through con- 
tinuing in such a marriage being thereby removed. Paul’s judgment, 
therefore, is that the Christian dy:éryc, the higher analogue of the Jewish 
theocratic consecration to God, affects even the non-believing partner in a 
marriage, and so passes over to him that he does not remain a profane per- 
son, but through the intimate union of wedded life becomes partaker (as if 
by a sacred contagion) of the higher divinely consecrated character of his 
consort, who belongs to the Israel of God, the holy ¢épaya (Gal. vi. 16 ; 
Rom. xi. 16). The clause: érei dpa ta téxva x.t.A., shows that what the 
amotoc is here said to have entered upon is not the moral holiness of the 
new birth (the subjective condition of which is nothing else but faith), but 
the holy consecration of that bond of Christian fellowship which forms the 
éxxAnoia Oeov, of which holiness, as arising out of this fellowship, the non- 
believing husband, in virtue of the inner union of life in which he stands to 
his Christian consort, has become a partaker (not, of course, without 
receiving a blessing morally also). The non-believer is, as it were, affiliated 
to the holy order of Christians by his union of married life with a Christian 
person, and, so soon as his spouse is converted to Christ and has thereby 
become holy, he too on his part participates in his own person (not ‘‘ simply 
in his married relationship,” to which Hofmann, following older inter- 
preters, unwarrantably restricts the meaning of the text) in his consort’s 
holiness, the benefit of which he receives in virtue of his fellowship of life 
with her, so that he is no longer axé@aprog as hitherto, but—although 
mediately after the fashion described—a jyacuévoc. The manifold misinter- 
pretations of the older commentators may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and 
Wolf's Curae.* Observe, moreover, in how totally different a way Paul 
regarded the relation of the Christian who had connected himself with a 
harlot (vi. 15). In that case the harlot is the preponderating clement, and 
the members of Christ become unholy, members of an harlot. — With év rq 
yuv. and év 7@ avd., comp. év ool rao’ éywye cdbfoua, Soph. Aj. 519 3 év. cat 
éouev, Oed. R. 314, and the like; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 597. —émet apa 
k.7.A.] because according to that (if, namely, that rjyiaora did not hold good ; 
comp. v. 10), i.e. because otherwise your children are unclean, profane. That 
Christians’ children are not profane, outside of the theocratic community 
and the divine covenant, and belonging to the unholy xécyoc, but, on the 
contrary, holy, is the conceded point from which Paul proves that the non- 
believing husband is sanctified through his believing wife ; for just as in 





1In a mixed marriage, therefore, the 
Christian ay:érys forms, in relation to the 
non-Christian unholiness, the preponderating 
element, extending the character of sancti- 
ty even to what of itself would be profane; 
as Chrysostom expressesit : viuxa 7 kadapérns 
THS yuvakds THY axadapciav, Comp. the 
paraphrase of Erasmus: ‘ Non inficit dete- 
rioris impietas alterius pietatem, quin illud 


potius praeponderat quod melius est et 
efficacius.”’ 

2e.g. Calovius and others hold that jy. 
refers to the usus conjugalis as sanctified 
per preces fidelis conjugis; Tertullian, 
Jerome, Theodoret, Castalio, Estius, a., 
think that it points to his being destined 
to be converted afterwards, so that the 
meaning would be candidatus jidei est. 


160 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
the children’s case, that which makes them holy is simply the specific bond 
of union with Christians (their parents) ; so, too, in the case of the mixed 
marriage, the same bond of union must have the same influence.*— Had the 
baptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have 
drawn this inference, because in that case the dyéry¢ of such children would 
have had another basis.” That the passage before us does not even contain 
an exegetical justification of infant baptism, is shown in the remarks on Acts 
xvi. 15 (against de Wette in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 669 ff., Neander, 
Olshausen, Osiander, and older expositors). Neither is it the point of 
departure, from which, almost of necessity, paedobaptism must have 
developed itself (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 423) ; such a point is rather to be 
found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin (s) — ipnor| 
should not be restricted, as is done by most expositors, following Chrysos- 
tom (so recently, Pott, Flatt, Ewald, Harless), to those involved in mixed mar- 
riages ;* but, as Paul himself makes clear by changing the person, referred 
to the readers as Christian in general* (de Wette, Schrader, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Hofmann ; Billroth is undecided), 
not, however, to the exclusion of the children of a mixed marriage, since it 
must be logically inferred that these, too, could not fail to have from their 
Christian father or mother at least ‘‘ quandam sanctitatis adsperginem” 
(Anselm). In how far the offspring of mixed marriages were counted holy 
by the Jews, may be seen in Wetstein and Schoettgen in loc. — viv dé] but 
so, as in ver. 11. . 1 
Ver. 15. Paul had before enjoined that the Christian partner should not 
make a separation if the non-Christian consents to remain. But what, if 


1The essence of this bond of union, as 
regards the children, does not lie in their 


vital union. It is upon this paritas rationis 
that the validity of the argument depends. 


being born or begotten of Christian parents ; 
for the children, although holy for their 
parents’ sakes, might be born or begotten 
before the father or mother had embraced 
Christianity. Nor are we warranted in 
saying, with Hofmann, that the child, as 
the gift of God, is holy, for its relation to its 
parents, who, so faras that is concerned, do 
notregard the sin with which itis born. That 
is arbitrarily to limit the apostle’s thought, 
and to read all the most essential points of 
it from between thelines. Onthecontrary, 
the relationship which Paul here enunciates 
simply and without any artificial saving 
clause is one which consists in the immedi- 
ate close fellowship of life, by virtue of which 
the consecration of Christian holiness at- 
taching to the parents passes over from 
them to their children also, to whom other- 
wise, as being still amicros, the predicate 
axadvapta Would rightly belong. Equally 
close and cordial is the fellowship of life 
between husband and wife, while every 
other kind of mutual connection is less in- 
timate, and forms a more distant degree of 


2 Comp. Jebamoth, f. xxviii. 1: “‘ Si gravi- 
da fit proselyta, non opus est, ut baptizetur 
infans quando natus fuerit ; baptismus enim 
matris ei cedit pro baptismo.”’ 

3"Axadaptoc is taken by many as equiva- 
lent to spurit. See Melanchthon in partic- 
ular: ‘Si non placeret consuetudo conju- 
galis, filii vestri essent spurii et eatenus 
immuundi, acédapro.. At filii vestrinon sunt 
spurii ; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo 
placet.”” He interprets axéSapro after VT91D 
in Deut. xxiii. 

4 Comp. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, II. p. 383, ed. 
5. Our passage, however, ought not to be 
adduced to prove the universal pollution 
of men by nature and birth, for acadapra 
must denote, not moral, but theocratic un- 
cleanness, like the xowa of Acts x. 28. 
This against Ernesti also, Ursprung der 
Stinde, II. p. 162 ff. The children of Chris- 
tians are, it is plain according to this verse, 
holy already (without baptism) at a time of 
life at which it is as yet inconceivable that 
the uncleanness should be removed through 
JSellowship with the Redeemer by faith. 


a 


CHAP. VII., 15. 161 


the non-Christian partner seeks separation? In that case they were to let 
such an one go without detention (ywpiféc8w, permissive, see Winer, p. 291 
[E. T. 390]) ; ‘‘suas sibi res habeat ; frater sororve sit aequo animo,” 
Bengel. And the reason for this was: ‘‘ A believer in such circumstances is 
not enslaved, nay, surely (dé after the negative clause) it is in peace that God 
has called us,” so that this our calling forbids such a living together as 
would be wnpeaceful through constraint. — oi dedobd.] is not enslaved, so, 
namely, as still to remain bound in marriage to such a ywpifsuevoc.1 The 
expression brings out the wnworthy character of such arelationship. Comp. 
Gal. iv. 3; Plato, Pol. ix. p. 589 E; Soph. Zrach. 256 ; 4 Macc. iii. 3 f., 
xili. 2.. See, on the other hand, the simple dédera in ver. 39. — év roi¢ Totot- 
totic] not, as Hofmann takes it : ‘‘Jn matters of the natural life,” to which 
marriage belongs, but in accordance with the context : under such circwm- 
stances, i.e. in such a position of things, where the non-believing consort 
separates himself. Luther renders well: ‘‘in solchen Féallen.” Comp. év 
toiode, Soph. Oed. Tyr. 892. é robrowc, Plut. Glor. Ath. p. 350 A ; Phil. 
iv. 11; év oic, Antiph. i. 6, and Maetzner in loc., p. 181. Only a comma 
should be placed after rovotrow. —év eipfvy] is not the same as ele elpyvyv 
(Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, following older expositors ; comp. also Bill- 
roth), or iva duev év eip. (de Wette, Osiander, Gratama, Maier) ; for that 
which is stated is not to what God has called us (see, on the other hand, 
ver. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), but in what ethical form God’s call has taken place. 
He has so called us, namely, to the Messiah’s kingdom, that He therewith 
caused peace to be proclaimed to us in respect of our relation to others 
(Eph. ii. 14 ff.). Analogous to this is the év in Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 
comp. also on Gal. i. 6. To understand, however, the eip#v7 as referring to 
the peace of the soul with God (Harless, Hofmann) would be possible only if 
dedovA. were to be referred to binding of the conscience. And even in that 
case we should expect as correlative rather év or éw éZevSepia (Gal. v. 18). 


ReEeMARxK.—Since desertion (ywpiterat) appears here as an admissible ground for 
divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, and various 
explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in loc), But the seeming contra- 
diction vanishes, if we consider ver. 12, according to which Jesus had given no 
judgment upon mixed marriages ; Matt. v. 32, therefore, can only bind the 
believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves. If, however, 
he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under 
the utterance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dis- 
solved, and the believing partner is not bound. But to apply, as is often done, 
the permissive ywpiléc8w, also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides 
—the Yupilouevoc, that is to say, being an unchristianly -minded Christian 
(Harless)—is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the Aourot who are here 
spoken of (see ver. 12) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in 


1 Weiss, in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1866, p. Hofmann. But had Paul meant this, he 
267 (comp. his bibl. Theol. p. 423), under- must have indicated it more particularly. 
stands dedSovA. of the burden of the conscience According to the context, ov SedovA. is the 
in view of Christ’s command respecting the opposite of the un adrérw in vy. 12, 18, denot- 

_ indissolubleness of marriage. Precisely so ing legal necessity, like 5éSerat in ver. 39. 


162 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to be reckoned among rovc¢ 
éw. So also pref. to 4th ed. p. vii. f. — Our text gives no express information 
upon the point, whether Paul would allow the Christian partner in such a union 
to marry again. For what ov dedovAotar negatives is not the constraint “ut 
caelebs maneat” (Grotius, al.), but the necessity for the marriage being con- 
tinued.! It may be inferred, however, that as in Paul’s view mixed marriages 
did not come under Christ’s prohibition of divorce, so neither would he have 
applied the prohibition of remarriage in Matt. v. 32 to the case of such unions. 
Olshausen is wrong in holding a second marriage in such cases unlawful, on 
the ground of its being, according to Matthew, l.c., a woryveia. Christ Himself 
took no account of mixed marriages. Nor would ver. 11, which does not refer 
to marriages of that kind, be at variance with the remarriage of the believing 
partner (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. I.c.). (7) 


Ver. 16. Confirmation of the foregoing thought, that the Christian 7s not 
bound in such cases, but, on the contrary, ought, in accordance- with his 
vocation, to live in peace ; for neither does the (Christian) wife know whether 
she, by continuing to live with her (non-believing) husband, shall be the means 
of his conversion, nor does the (Christian) husband know, etc. This uncertainty 
cannot be the basis of any constraint to the hurt of their peace.? Most ex- 
positors, on the other hand, from Chrysostom downwards, take ei in the 
sense of ei uf (see also Tholuck, Bergpredig. p. 251 f.), and hold that ver. 16 
enunciates a new reason for not breaking up the marriage, namely, the pos- 
sibility of the conversion of the non-believing husband. ’AvddeFai dyow éri 
xpnotaic éArios tov mévov. Eyere Tov Oedv THe mpofvuiac éxixovpov, Theodoret. 
That is to say,. they find in év 6é eipjvy «.7.2. the thought : yet the Christian 
partner should do everything to maintain peace and bear with the heathen 
consort,—and either link to this the new reason given in ver. 16 (Flatt, 
Riickert, Olshausen, following Calvin and others), or else regard ver. 15 as a 
parenthesis (Grotius, al.). But the parenthetic setting aside of ver. 15 is as 
arbitrary as the turn given to the idea of év dé eipfrvy x.7.A. 18 the contrary to 
context. With respect again to taking ei as equivalent to e pf, it is per- 
fectly true that ei, following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer 
in meaning to ei u# (Thue. ii. 53. 2 ; Kriger, § lxv. 1. 8; Esth. iv. 14; 2 
Sam. xii. 22 ; Joel ii. 14 ; Jonah iii. 9) ; but the thought which would thus 
emerge does not suit the connection here, because in it the point is the ov 
dedotAwrat, to which the proposed rendering of the ei would run counter.*® 
Moreover, this use of et is foreign to the N. T., often though it occurs in the 
classics (see especially Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 8, Anab. iii. 2. 22). —ré] 
precisely as the German : ‘‘ was weisst du, ob,” etc., so that in sense it is 
the same as: how, in how far (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 828) ; it is not 


1 Photius, as cited by Oecumenius, says 
very justly: ov« éxer dvdykny 0 motos 7H 7 


. . , > Lad al * s « 
kat THY Avou Exetvos ToLH, OV SedovVAwTat O TLa- 
Tos Els TO LH Xwptodyvat, 


mLgTH €v TOLS amiaToOLS TOLAUTHY, Ola AUT@ Emikec- 
Tal ETL TOV TLOT@Y* EKEL MEV YAP TaVTL TPOTYH, 
Rey ; sae gs oy ee 
xwpis Adyov Topvetas ovK éfeaTiv am’ addAyjAwy 
“ , Led ’ lel éeé bal 
tous cuvapdévtas xwpiadijvat’ evtravda dé, av 
péev cuvevdoky TO ATLOTOV MEpOS TW TLOTH TVVOL- 
a - ‘ , . 77 ” . , 
xeiv, det my Avery TO TvvotKégtoy’ ay bé GTaTLaly 


2 Comp. de Wette, Osiander, Neander, 
Ewald, Maier, Hofmann [Stanley, Alford, 
Beet]. 

3 A limitation of the ov SedSovAwrat, and 
that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in 
only with the «i uy «.7.A. in ver. 17. 


CHAP! Viti) 17, 163 
therefore the accusative of the object. 
15. Regarding the future cdcece comp. Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 249 ; 
ad Devar. p. 508. 

Ver. 17. Ei u#| is meant, according to Grotius, to introduce an exception 
to the 7? olda¢ : ‘‘Ilud quidem, quod dixi, non scis, sed hoc debes scire ;” 
or, more exactly, since ei u# is not the same as daAdd (see on Gal. i. 7): 
Nothing but the duty dost thou know, etc. .Comp. my 3d edition. But this 
mode of joining on the verse is very harsh and forced in itself, and is, 
besides, unsuitable for this reason, that ver. 16 was only a subordinate 
thought, to which ¢ 7 «.7.A. as a newly introduced leading idea stands in 
no logical nexus. The logical connection of ¢ 4, nisi, etc., is, on the con- 
trary, to be sought in the leading thought of the foregoing passage, which 
was ov dedotAwra K.7.A. This od dedotAwrac . . . Oedc Was enunciated without 
any limitation being put upon it hitherto. It was further confirmed in ver. 
16. Paul desires now, in order to avert all frivolous and reckless procedure, 
to add to it the necessary limitation in the shape of a general principle of a 
practical kind, which should never be forgotten in connection with it.’ We 
may paraphrase accordingly somewhat in this fashion : ‘‘ The believer is not 
in bondage in this matter, having, on the contrary, been called in peace, and not 
so much as knowing whether he shall save his non-believing consort ; he is not in 
bondage, only * he is not to use this freedom in a light and regardless way, but to 
remember that it is limited by the rule that every one ought to abide in a conserov- 
ative spirit by the position in which God has placed and called him, and to con- 
duct himself accordingly, instead of possibly seeking to break it up without any 
very pressing cause.” Comp. as in substance agreeing with this, Olshausen, 
de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier. Pott holds that ywpifera: should be 
supplied after ei wf ; but the antithesis would require ¢i dé 7, and the rule 
which follows would be very superfluous in a case where no separation had 
taken place, more especially after ver. 12 f. Vater and Riickert supply 
cdcee : ‘* But even if thou shouldst not, the general rule applies in every 
case.” Were that correct, we should of necessity find ci dé cai wh. Lastly, 
there is the view of those who would join «i 4 to the preceding clause 
(rwéc in Theophylact, Knatchbull, Homberg, Hammond, Olearius, Morus, 
and recently Hofmann) : if thou shalt save thy wife, if (or) not?*? Now this 
is not, indeed, excluded by the y# (as Riickert thinks, who requires oi ; but 
see Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 123) ; still the addition would be quite inap- 
propriate to the sense of the two questions, for these convey the idea : thou 
knowest not at all if, etc., with which the alternative neene does not harmon- 
ize,—on which ground, too, Hofmann makes ver. 16 to be the concluding 


Comp. 7% oles, 7? doxeic, Xen. Hier. i. 
Klotz, 


here gives expression to in a Christian 
form. 


1 Paul had doubtless ground enough in 
the rich experience of his career for giving 


this warning. How often in the cases of 
conversion to Christianity must the deep 
inward change have had linked to it a 
yearning after some change of outward re- 
lationships !—an offence against the practi- 
calrule: ‘‘ Qua positus fueris, in statione 
mane” (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 674), which Paul 


2 Respecting ei wy in the sense of mAjv, 
see Poppo, ad Thuc. III. 1, p. 216; and re- 
specting the principal sentence annexed to 
it, Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 308 [E. T. 359]... 

3 Hence the reading 4» “7 in more recent 
codd. Severianus in Oecumenius, Chrysos- 
tom, ms. Syr. p. on the margin. 


164 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

confirmation of the whole admonition beginning with toi¢ d2 Aouroic in ver. 
12. This, again, is impossible, for this reason, that the jirst part of the 
counsel given to the Aouroi has already received its confirmation in the ydép 
of ver. 14, and in accordance therewith the yap of ver. 16 must now refer in 
the way of confirmation only to the second part of the said counsel, as con- 
tained in ver. 15. Hofmann’s interpretation is in the most complicated op- 
position to the plan and development of the apostle’s argument. Rinck, in 
his Lucubr. crit. p. 142 f. (and so previously Theodoret), connects from « y4 
on to Kipiocg with the preceding passage : ‘‘nescis enim, an salyum eum fac- 
turus sis, nisi prout quemque Dominus adjuverit.”’ 
and éxaorov oc xéxd. 6. 8. are manifestly parallel, and, as such, contain not a 
frigid repetition (Rinck), but an earnest exhaustion of the thought. — éxdorw 
éc] the same as o¢ éx., but with emphasis on the ékaorw. Comp. iii. 5, x. 
16; Rom. xii. 3. As the Lord (God) hath apportioned to each (has bestowed 
his outward lot), as (é.e. 7 KAgjoe, ver. 20) God hath called each (to the 
Messiah’s kingdom), so let him walk, i.e. according to the standard of this 
outward position (without seeking, therefore, to break with it or step out 
from it, vv. 20, 24) let him regulate his conduct, his course of life. ’Eyépicev, 
has given his portion (Polybius, xxxi. 18. 3, xi. 28. 9; Eccles. xlv. 20; 2 
Mace. viii. 28 ;.4 Macc. xiii. 18), refers to the earthly relations of life, ac- 
cording to which, e.g., a man may be married to this person or that (and it 
is to this relationship that the primary application is to be made), may be 
circumcised or uncircumcised, a slave or free,’ etc. See ver. 18 ff. These 
relationships of life are here regarded as a whole, out of which each indi- 
vidual has received his pépoc from God (76 uewepiouévov, Lucian, D. D. xxiv. 
1), in accordance with the varying modes (4c) of the divine apportionment. 
Comp. the classical 7 eiwapyévyn, sors attributa. We have to supply neither 
repirateiv (Hofmann), nor anything else. What the Lord has apportioned 
is just the pépoc, which each man has. Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 175 ff., 
understands pepifew in the theocratic-Messianic sense, and makes 6 Képzo¢ 
refer to Christ: ‘‘in qua vitae externae sorte ac statu (é¢, conf. ver. 18) 
cuique Dominus beneficiorum suorum quasi partem tribuit.” According to 
this, what would be meant would be the pepi¢ tov xAgpov tov dyiwy (Col, i. 
°12), which, however, refers to the bliss of the future aiév, and would re- 
quire, therefore, to be understood here proleptically. But there are two con- 
siderations which put a decided negative upon this view : first, the refer- : 
ence assumed for the absolute éuép. is not suggested by the context (see, on 
the contrary, ver. 18 ff.) ; and in the second place, logically the calling 
must go jirst, since before it there can be no mention of the Messianic pepiferv 
(Rom. viii. 80, x. 14; Col. i. 12). This holds also against the essentially 
similar interpretation of Harless, which co-ordinates éuép. with the calling. — 


But éxaor o¢ éuép. 6. K. 


ina change of the situation in which they 
had been when called. This mistake should 
have been precluded even by what follows, 


1 The call of the individuals to salvation 
took place in these differently apportioned 
positions and relationships in life. Hence 


the ws éudpioev takes precedence of the ws 
xéxAynxev, Hofmann is wrong in holding that 
the ws éuépicey might lie on this side or on 
that of the calling, and might consist even 


which always starts from those circum- 
stances alone which subsisted at the time 
of the calling ; see vv. 18, 21, 24. 


CHAP. VII., 18-20. 165 


KéxAnkev| a completed transaction continuing to the present in its results, 
hence the perfect ; the aorist éuép., on the other hand, indicated something 
merely which took place as an act of the past, and this act occurred before the 
xéxAnev, at birth, or some other point in life. — kai obrw¢ «.r.4.} showing the 
importance of this rule, which Paul is not by any means laying down simply 





with a view to the special state of things at Corinth, but, etc., wa tw éxewv Kai 


GAAove Kotvwvod¢ Tpobuudrepas Tept THY bTakoyv SiatebGor, Theophylact. — dcardco. | 
I ordain, appoint, xi. 34, xvi. 1. Observe the evidence here of apostolic 
power over the church. 

Ver. 18 ff. Further explanation of this injunction by way of example, and 
not bearing simply on the case of Christians living in mixed marriage.*— The 
‘protases do not convey a question either here or in ver. 27, being in the rhe- 
torically emphatic form of the hypothetic indicative. See Bernhardy, p. 385. 
Comp. Kiihner, IL. p. 561. — uy éxiordcfw] ne sibi attrahat, sc. praeputium. 
A surgical operation frequent among the later Jews (1 Macc. i. 15, and 
Grimm in loc. ; Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 1), described in detail by Celsus, vii. 
25. 5, or otherwise performed, by which a sort of foreskin was again drawn 
over the glans—resorted to not only in cases of perversion to heathenism, 
but also from shame or fear of heathen eyes, before which men sought to 
avoid appearing (in baths, for example, or otherwise) as cirewmcised. With 
Christians this might especially be occasioned by a shrinking from the eyes 
of Gentile converts. See, besides Wetstein, Groddeck in Schoettgen’s Horae, 
p- 1159 f. ; Lightfoot, p.194 ; Liibkert in the Stud. u. Krit.. 1835, p. 657. 
Such persons were styled D°31W1, See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1274. — év 
axpoB.| Comp. Rom. iv. 10. . 

Ver. 19. Comp. Rom. ii. 25 ff. ; Gal. v. 6. From the Christian point of 
view tt matters nothing whether a man be circumcised or not ; comp. viil. 8. 
—anaa thpyoce Evtor. Ocov| but keeping of the commands of God, sc. ta mdvta éort, 
asin ili. 7. According to the Christian idea (Rom. xiii. 8), there is no dif- 
ference between this and the faith that worketh by love (Gal. v. 6). Bill- 
roth is wrong in taking it as: ‘‘ In themselves circumcision and uncircumci- 
sion are alike indifferent ; such things are of importance only in so far as 
they are an observing of the commandments of God ;” for 7 axpoB. cannot 
be included with the other under rfp. évr. Ocoi. 

Ver. 20. An emphatic repetition of the rule after giving the ilustration of 
it. Comp. ver. 24.—év rq KAgoee 7 éxAhOn] Since Calvin, expositors have 
often understood «Ajovc of the outward position in life, like our calling | Beruf |, 
and have supplied év before 7 in accordance with the pure Attic idiom (Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 76 D ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 82). So, re- 
cently, Riickert. But although «fore (Didnys. Hal. Antt. iv. 18) does ex- 
pressly correspond to the Latin classis, a division of the burgesses, according 
to the true derivation of that technical:term from the Greek, yet even pro- 
fane writers never use xAjovc in the sense of avocation [| Beruf] (rank, and the 
like) ; and in the whole N, T. the Christian meaning of xaAciv and KAgorc is 


2 Theodoret says well: elra cuvyjdws ard tod mpoxeyrévou eis ETEpa MEeTaBaiver, 
MATL voMOVET@Y TA KaTAAANAG, 


166 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


that in which they are invariably used, and so here also: in the calling (to 
the Messianic kingdom (through which (7 being the dat. instrum., as in 2 Tim. 
i. 9) he was called. This may have been, that is to say, a xAgove going forth 
from God to a circumcised manor an uncircumcised, to a slave or a free- 
man, etc. If, now, the man, for example, who was called in circumcision 
by a vocatio circumeisi thereafter restores the foreskin, so as to give himself 
out for an uncircumcised person, he does not abide in the calling through 
which he was called. The right interpretation is already given by Chrysos- 
tom and Theophylact (év oiw Biv Kai év oiw Taypwate Kai ToATEbmatt Ov éiorevoer, 
év TobT@ pevétw’ KAHOLY yap THY Eig THY TioTLY TpooAaywyHY yor). 
Comp. ver. 17 : &¢ KéxAyjxev 6 Oedc. The emphatic év rairy (vi. 4) points at the 
misdirected yearning for another state of matters through which another kajoug 
would present itself, as e.g. through the érioraofa a being called éy axpo- 
Bvoria, etc. 

Ver. 21. My cor perétw] let it give thee no concern, let it be all the same to 
thee. Hom. J/. ii. 338, x. 92; Plato, Phaed. p. 95B; Tim. p. 24 B; 
Wisd. xii. 18; Mark iv. 38, al. What it is that ought to give him no con- 
cern, is plain from the immediate context, namely, his being called as a slave ; 
not, as Hofmann would read into the text, his seeming to be doomed to life- 
long slavery. — a2’ et Kal x.t.2.| but, even if thou art in cireuinstances to become 
Sree, use it rather, namely, the having been called asa slave ; make use 
rather (instead of becoming free) of thy ‘‘ vocatio servi” by remaining true 
to thy position as a slave. Comp. ver. 20. So, in substance, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact. Camerarius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and many of 
the older interpreters ; among more modern expositors, de Wette, Osian- 
der, Maier, Ewald,’ Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 26 fi.), also Vaihinger 
in Herzog’s Hneykl. XIV. p. 474 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417 f. The aara 
is nothing else than the German sondern, corresponding tothe preceding pA 
cot wer., and ei cai is etst (Herm. ad Viger. p. 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. 
p: 82 A; Baecumlein, Partik. p. 151), so that it conveys the sense: even 
although, if even ; and in the conditional clause the emphasis is made by «ai 
to fall upon déivaca. The Syriac, however (‘‘elige tibi potius quam ut ser- 
vias’), and most modern commentators, supply rp éAevfepia after ypyoat, 
with Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius 3 Lapide, 
and many others (a view mentioned, too, by Chrysostom). Paul's advice, 
they hold, is rather to avail oneself of the opportunity of becoming free. But 
this is grammatically incorrect, because it goes in the face of the «ai,? and 


1} Who, however, expounds xpjodat as 
meaning fo let oneself be used, i.e. to be de- 
pendent without being able to establish any 
precedent for such a rendering. Regard- 
ing xpjodat without adative of the object, 
see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Lep. p. 452 C, 489 B. 

2 What devices have been practised of 
late with this «at! Billroth thinks that it 
indicates an accessory thought: ‘‘ this, too, 
is not to be denied, that if thou canst be 
free,” etc. Riickert thinks that it denotes 
a climax and properly (?) belongs to éAevd. : 


‘*buf if thou mayest even be free,” etc. Ols- 
hausen holds that spiritual freedom is im- 
plied in kxadciodat, and that, starting from 
this idea, Paul goes on: ‘** but if in addi- 
tion to thy spiritual freedom thou canst 
obtain also bodily liberty, avail thyself of 
it rather.’? Even Neander substantially 
agrees with this. But upon Billroth’s view 
kat would require to come before et ; upon 
Riickert’s and Olshausen’s, before éAcvd. ; 
and the turn given to the clause by the 
latter is but one proof out of many that 


CHAP. VII., 22. 16% 
contrary also to the connection, for Paul would thus be contravening his own 
thrice-repeated injunction : let each man remain, etc. (v) The ground spe- 
cially founded on (in a very unhermeneutical way) by Riickert, that the old 
interpretation is against the spirit of the apostle, is untenable ; for the ad- 
vice to use the opportunities of obtaining freedom—an advice comparatively 
unimportant and paltry in view of the Parousia believed to be at hand—by 
no means corresponds with the apostle’s lofty idea that all are one in Christ 
(Gal. ii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Col. iii. 11) ; that in Christ the slave is free 
and the freeman a slave (ver. 22) ; as, indeed, ver. 22 can furnish a confir- 
mation of ver. 21 only on the ground of the old exposition, descending from 
Chrysostom, al., of paAAov ypjoa. It may be added, that that idea of true 
Christian equality carries in itself the germ of the abolition of slavery ; the 
latter is the ripe fruit of the former. The moral consciousness of Christen- 
dom has not in this respect advanced beyond the standpoint of Paul (Baur) ; 
it is but a further development of the same principle which he enunciates, the 
future influence of which, however, upon the removal of slavery the apostle 
himself was not led to consider more closely from his expectation of the 
nearness of that great change which was to bring in for all believers tho 
glorious liberty of the children of God. He left slavery, therefore, unas- 
sailed, as he did civil relations in general, not even asking, in his letter to 
Philemon, that Onesimus should be set free, but introducing the idea of 
Christian love, unity, and equality (xii. 13; Gal. ili. 28; Eph. vi. 8; 
Philem. 16 ; Col. iv. 1),—-an idea, the consequence of which is necessarily 
the cessation of slavery, although just as necessarily it was not natural for 
the apostle, with his eye turned to the approaching Parousia, to single out 
this consequence and apply it to an age of the world which, in his view, 
was on the point of passing away. It maybe further noted that he does not 
forbid an exchange of slavery for freedom, which was in itself allowable ; 
but he disswades from it as a trifling way of dealing with the position in 
question, under the circumstances of the time, when viewed from the height 
of the Christian standpoint. 

Ver. 22. For the converted slave is Christ’s freedman ; in like manner, too 
(Suoiwe kai introduces the precise reversal of relations which here also takes 
place), the freeman who becomes a Christian is the slave of Christ. That moral 
freedom (comp. John viii. 36) and this moral slavery are of course essentially 
identical (Rom. vi. 16 ff. ; Eph. vi. 6; Col. ii. 24) ; but Paul grounds 
here his admonition in ver. 21 by showing that the matter may be looked 
at from a twofold point of view: the Christian slave should recognize his 
relation to Christ as that of an areAebGepoc Xpiorov,’ and the freeman’s relation 
as that of a dotAoc Xpiorov. This will serve in his case this end, not by any 


must have written cat ei. 


men may make anything out of every- 
thing, if they—wéil/. Hofmann considers 
that xai lays emphasis on the reality (comp. 
on ver. 11) as contrasted with the mere 
wish, which wish, however, is only brought 
in by an erroneous explanation of pu coe 
pedérw, He even maintains that, according 
to our understanding of the verse, Paul 


He might have 
written either, and would, had it been kai 
ei, have meant even in the case that; but ho 
meant «i kai (if thou art even in a position to, 
ete.), and therefore wrote it and nothing else. 
The latter is as little absurd as the former. 

1} So that ‘‘ei ciua SodA0v, add’ 6 vous EAev- 
depos,’ Soph. Fragm. 677, Dindorf. 


168 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


means (as Hofmann illogically inserts into the text, despite the pévew again 
required in ver. 24) that he should count it unnecessary to remain in the 
position of a slave,’ but, on the contrary, that he should abide content- 
edly in his station without coveting freedom. — 6 év Kupiw xd. dovd.]. the 
slave who is called in the Lord, i.e. who has received the Christian calling. 
That is to say, this «Ajou has not taken place, as any other might, out of 
Christ, but 7 Him, as being the distinctive element in which it has its 
specific character. The év Kupiw, which might have been understood of it- 
self, is expressly added here, because it was meant to be an emphatic corre- 
late to the Kupiov which follows. It is wholly foreign to the argument to 
imagine a contrast here with the earthly master (Hofmann), as in Eph. vi. 
5; Col. ili, 22, iv. 1. —azedctbepoc with the genitive is not used here in the 
common sense of libertus alicujus, some one’s manumitted slave, for the 
master hitherto had been sin or Satan (see on vi. 20) ; but simply @ freed- 
man belonging to Christ (comp. KAnrot "Iycov X., Rom. i. 6), after Christ, 
namely, has set him free from the service of another (comp. Ignatius, ad Rom. 
4). This was self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. 

Ver. 23. Hor a price (see on vi. 20) were ye (my readers in general) bought 
(namely, by Christ to be His slaves) ; become not (therefore) servants of men ; 
i.e. do not make yourselves dependent upon what men wish and demand of 
you, instead of allowing your conduct to be moulded by Christ’s will and 
service. Paul designs that this should be applied to the mistaken submis- 
sion shown on the part of the church to such as wished that men should 
break up or alter their civil relationships and other existing situations to 
please them, and in compliance with their solicitations and deceptive sug- 
gestions. This more specific reference of the warning, in itself conveyed in 
general terms, we may naturally gather from ver. 24. Instigations and 
seductions of this kind, arising partly, perhaps, from fanatical excitement, 
must plainly have occurred at Corinth in connection with circumstances of 
the details of which we are ignorant ; for otherwise the whole of the 
minute instructions from ver. 17 to ver. 24 would lack any concrete basis. 
The interpretation with which Chrysostom and Theophylact content them- 
selves is therefore much too vague : that Paul is forbidding men-pleasing 
generally, and compliance with immoral demands. So also Theodoret’s 
view, that he enjoins 7 dovAorperés Every opdvnua. Osiander and Neander’s 
rendering is too general also (‘‘every kind of wrong dependence”), It 
is altogether alien to the context, vv. 17-24, to suppose that dvOpézwv 
refers to Paul, Cephas, Apollos, etc. (Riickert), and that the meaning is 
substantially the same as had been expressed in ili. 21 by pydeic xavyacbw 
év avOpéroe (Hofmann). Equally out of accordance with the subject in 
hand is Billroth’s exposition (given before by Vatablus), that the apostle 
exhorts the slaves not to do their service for the sake of men, but for the 
Lord’s sake (Col. ili. 22). Heydenreich, on the other hand, holds (with 


1 Paulis, infact, guarding by this grand  tianity side by side with all unjust estima- 
utterance of his against allunjustcontémpt tion of the worth of mere outward free- 
for the condition of outward slavery,—a dom. 
feeling which vanishes in the light of Chris- 


CHAP. VII., 24, 25. 169 


Menochius, Hammond, Knatchbull, Mosheim, Michaelis, Zachariae) that he 
is admonishing the freemen not to sell themselves into slavery. But, even 
putting out of account the second person plural, which directs the words to 
the readers generally, were that the meaning, Paul would undoubtedly have 
called attention to a new illustration of his rule, as he does in vv. 18, 21. 
And how unlikely a thing that men went into slavery in those days jor the 
sake of Christianity (for according to the connection it is this motive which 
must be presupposed, not : for gain’s sake)! 

Ver. 24. To conclude the whole digression, the weighty rule is once more 
enunciated (év @ «.r.A. : In whatever relationship, in whatever outward po- 
sition, etc.), and now with the strengthening clause rapa Oe@, which de- 
scribes the év totrw péveww according to its moral and religious character ; that 
outward abiding is to be of such a kind that therein the man shall abide 
inwardly with God (the caller), which moral relation of fellowship is locally 
represented in a concrete way by zapé (‘‘a Deo non recedens,” Hstius). 
Comp. Theophylact,—who, however, makes out a special reference to im- 
moral obedience to masters,—Schrader, Riickert, Neander, Osiander. De 
Wette limits the meaning to the relation of a Christian slave, as in ver. 22, 
which, after the general ver. 23, is inadmissible. The common interpretation, 
“‘eoram Deo” (Calvin), ‘‘ Deo inspectante”’ (Grotius), which would imply: 
“‘nerpetuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu versari” (Beza, comp. de Wette), 
would correspond to the current phrase évériov rod Ocov. Hofmann makes 
év @ and év tobrw refer to Christ (comp. ver. 22); the call took place in 
Christ to God, and therefore every one is to have in Christ (on His mediato- 
rial foundation) his abiding with God. The perfect conformity of ver. 24 
with ver. 20 ought, had it stood alone, to have prevented this misinterpre- 
tation. But besides, the call is given from God, not to God, but to eternal 
Messianic life (comp. on i. 9). 

Ver. 25. Aé] indicating the transition to a new section inthe discussion 
on marriage. — raplévor| virgins. We are not to understand this’ of the wn- 
married of both sexes, young men and maidens, which is contrary to the ordi- 
nary usage of the language (see too, vv. 34, 36, 37) ; for in such passages as 
Rev. xiv. 4, Oecumenius, Quaest. Amphil. 188 ; Nonnus on John xix. 26 ;_ 
Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. Il. pp. 92, 98; also Arist. Hg. 1302, the word 
is maidenly ; and that it ever with Greek writers means a single man in the 
proper sense, is at least very doubtful. — yrdunr] view, opinion. As regards 
yrou. didapu (2 Cor. vill. 10), see the examples in Kypke, IL. p. 205. 4= The 
- Sense most in accordance with the context for miord¢ is that of credible, i.e. 
trustworthy (1 Tim. iv. 9). The more general faithful (in the service of 
Christ ; so Billroth, Riickert, Ewald) is less suitable ; and least of all the 
simple believing, as Hofmann would have it. Paul’s being an déiéypewe cbp- 
Bovdocg (Theodoret) he ascribes to the mercy of Christ: for he knows well 
in himself that that characteristic would not belong to him without Christ’s 
gracious call to the apostleship, and without enlightenment and aid from 
Him. Comp, also ver. 40. Hence a¢ (quippe) éAenuévoc x.7.A. 


1 With Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bengel, Semler, Zachariae, Schleusner, Schulz, Rosen- 
miiller, Flatt, Pott, Olshausen, Ewald, 


170 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 26. In carrying out his theme de virginibus, Paul proceeds as follows: 
first, in the passage extending to ver. 35 he gives a general recommenda- 
tion of single life to both sexes, and only then deals with the subject of vir- 
gins exclusively on to ver. 88. — otv] therefore, introduces now the yrouy in 
accordance with what was said in ver. 25. — dvOpérw] refers, as the more 
detailed remarks in ver. 27 ff. prove, not to virgins alone (Hofmann), as 
applied to whom, besides, it would be an awkward expression,’ but means: 
@ person, including both sexes. It is otherwise in ver. 1.—otrwc] so, as he 
és, i.e. unmarried, which follows from r. rapOévwv, ver. 25. To be so Paul 
esteems salutary (xadév, as in ver. 1), not absolutely and in itself, but be- 
cause the Parousia is near, and still nearer, therefore, must be the general 
calamities which are to precede it, the dolores Messiae, WWD an (see on 
Matt. xxiv. 3). These form the instant (iii. 23) distress, t.e. a distress 
which is impending and _ has already begun to set in. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 
19. The persecutions (Pott, Flatt, Hofmann, after older expositors) are 
only a part of it. Matrimonial cares and sufferings, again (Schulz, follow- 
ing Theophylact and others), are not meant at all. See ver. 39 ff. — As 
little are we to understand ‘‘impending constraint through marriage” 
(Cropp in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 103), against which OAinpw 
alone, in ver. 28 and ver. 381, testifies with sufficient clearness. Comp. 
rather rH éveoctéon avayxy, 8 Macc. 1. 16, the distress having set in, and see 
generally on Gal. i. 4.—The construction is anacoluthic, so that roiro, 
which belongs to vouifw, prepares for the following kaxdv trdpyew on to 
obtwc eivac (comp. on Rom. ii. 8 and Kiihner, § 631. 2); but then 67 xaddv 
x.T.4., Which states the contents of the vouifw, instead of ending simply 
with avOparw 70 obtwe elvac, begins from the beginning again, and that with 
a 671, which comes in in place of the construction with the infinitive 
(Kiihner, § 771. 5). A manifest confusion of expression, into which in dic- 
tation Paul might be especially likely to fall by forgetting, after the enuncia- 
tion of the principal thought dca +. éveor. avayx., that he had already said 
kadov brdpyerv. Hence, too, it is more natural to connect dia 7. éveot. avayn. 
with what precedes it than hyperbatically with érz x.T.4. (Ewald, Hofmann).? 
Translate : My opinion, then, is this, that it is good on account of the impending 
distress,—that it is good [I think] for a person to be in such a position. 
Heydenreich holds wrongly—as the fact of there being no airaic added is | 
enough of itself to show—that 6 rz should be read, so that Paul would say 
that what is good for the man is good for them, namely, single life. De 
Wette takes rovro as equivalent to zapfévov eiva, and then renders 6m by 
because: ‘‘ because it isin general good for a man to be unmarried.” ° But 
this ‘‘ in general” is not in the text, and yet of necessity it would have 
required to de there, for without it the argument emerges as an idem per 


1 dvdpwros as a feminine usually answers 3 This rendering occurs in substance in 
in Greek writers, as is well known, to the Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin. Beza, too, 
German colloquial phrase ‘‘ das Mensch.” agrees with it in his explanation of rovro, 


2 Ewald, moreover, takes 76 ottws eitvacto but understands or caddy «.7.A. aS resump- 
mean ‘that it should be so,’ referring to the tive. 
following rule Sé5ecat, «.7.A. 


CHAP. VII., 27-31. TOE 


idem ; -and in truth, even were the ‘‘in general” expressed, the main state- 
ment would be an inappropriate one, since it would contain nothing to 
establish the essential element d:d r. éveor. dvayxnv. The anacoluthon of the 
passage belongs to those in which ‘‘celeritate quadam abrepti novam enun- 
tiationem inchoamus priore nondum absoluta,” Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. 
V. p. 442. 
Ver. 27. Lest the yrouy in ver. 26 should be misinterpreted as favouring 
divorce, he now prefaces his further discussion of the subject with the rule, 
which is appropriate here only as a caveat: let not the married desire to be 
loosed. The construction is as in ver. 18. — yvvaixi] dativus communionis, as 
in Rom. vii. 2, and with Greek writers. It is plain, especially from vv. 29 
and 34, that déd. yuv. does not mean betrothal (Ewald and Hofmann); but 
that ywv4 denotes a married wife. — AéAvoa]| does not imply: art thou sepa- 
rated from (Mosheim, Semler), but art thou j/ree from, unentangled with a 
wife, single (‘‘ sive uxorem habueris, sive non,” Estius; comp. so early an 
interpreter as Photius)? See ver. 28, and comp. Xenophon, Cyr. i. 1. 4, 
where AeAtola: ax’ aAAjAwy is equivalent to abrévoua eivat. 

Ver. 28. Oby juaptec] But should it be the case that thou shalt have 
married, thou hast not sinned therein. Comp. Matthiae, p. 1203; Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. Hofmann is wrong here also (comp. on ver. 
11)in holding that éay 62 «cat means: but if already actually, etc. —yhun 7 
mwap0.| Here as in 1 Tim. v. 11 the term yapeiv is applied, indeed, to the 
woman (see on ver. 39), but without violation of rule, since it is not joined 
with an accusative. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 424.—7% capxi] not in 
the ethical sense, but (comp. Gal. iv. 13) for the material, animal part of 
man’s nature. In troublous times the married man is exposed to special 
anguish from sufferings of this kind (hunger, nakedness, sickness, misusage, 
banishment, etc.). Whether we have here a dative of appropriation 
(trouble for the flesh ; see on 1 Cor. xii. 7; Bernhardy, p. 88), or whether 
it belongs to the verb, cannot well be determined. — éyd 62 iy. geidouar] but 
I, for my part, deal tenderly towards you, in advising you rather to remain 
unwedded ; for by this advice, if you will follow it, I spare you such 
OAiWui¢. 

Vv. 29-31. This, however, I say, i.e. of what follows I assure you. Comp. 
xv. 50. Aé leads over to something wherewith Paul (‘‘as it were prophesy- 
ing,” Ewald) designs to secure the more acceptance for the counsel, which he 
has given with the view of sparing his readers. Pott, Flatt, and others 
take rovro dé dnt x.7.2. AS A More precise explanation of OAiww . . . ToLlodvroL, 
and then vv. 32-35 asa more precise explanation of éy dé iy. geid. Two 
things militate against this—first, the more emphatic import of ui (comp. 
also x. 15, 19 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 906), which is stronger than Aéyo ; 
and secondly, the correct view of ovvecradu. (see below). Riickert takes it : 
‘* Happen, however, what may, marry ye or not, this remark I cannot sup- 
press.” But were that the meaning, rovro dé 6. would require to follow at 
once after oi. #uapre. — 6 xatpéc| the space of time,—subsisting up to the Pa- 
rousia,—not our earthly lifetime in general (Calvin, Vorstius, Estius, al.) ; 
neither is it merely the time yet to elapse ere that avdyxy arrives (Reiche), 


\ 


172 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


which would be more distinctly indicated than by the simple 6 kazpée ; be- 
sides, the avdy«y has already begun to make itself felt, éveordoa, ver. 26. — 
ovvectadapuévoc]| is taken by most recent expositors (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, 
Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander ; Billroth is unde- 
cided) as meaning calamitosum. - But without warrant of usage ; for in pas- 
sages such as 1 Macc. ili. 6 (comp. Polyb. v. 15. 8, xxiv. 5. 13 ; Plato, Lys. 
p. 210 E; Isocrates, p. 176 A; Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, p. 609), v. 3, 
2 Macc. vi. 12, 3 Macc. v. 33, cvoréAAw means to humble, to overthrow, which 
does not suit with xa:péc. The correct translation is that of the old inter- 
preters (so also de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Weiss) : com- 
pressed, i.e. brought within narrow limits (Plato, Legg. ili. p. 691 E ; De- 
mosth. 809. 2; Lucian, Icar. 12; comp. ovoroag, abbreviation). The space 
of time remaining is only of brief duration. In connection with this, 7d 
Aowrév is generally made to refer to what precedes :' the time is henceforth 
(in posterum, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 777; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 
5) cut short,—a mode of connecting the words, however, which makes 7d 
Zourdv convey a superfluous idea. Others hold that it refers to what follows,? 
and that in the sense of ‘‘ ergo agendum, quod sequitur,” Estius ; comp. 
Luther : ‘‘ weiter ist das die Meinung.” But how obscure the expression 
would thus be! The ¢elic sense of iva, too, would be deprived of its logical 
reference to what precedes. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hofmann, adopt- 
ing the reading which puts éori before 76 Aourdv (see the critical remarks), 
place a comma after the verb: ovvectadp. éotiv, 7d Aowrdv iva K.T.A., 4.6. the 
. time is shortened, in order that in future, etc. Comp. as regards this posi- 
tion for iva, on Eph. iii. 18 ; Gal. i. 10; Rom. xi. 31. This is preferable, 
because 76 Ardy is thus put emphatically forward in its essential and im- 
portant meaning : in order that henceforward these relationships may be 
dealt with in a wholly different way than hitherto. Comp. upon the sub- 
ject-matter, Matt. xxiv. 42 ff. —iva introduces the design of ovveoradu. éore 
in the arrangements of God.3 Beza, Billroth, Schrader, Hofmann make it 
refer to rovto dé gnu. But we-may see from mapdyee yap x.7.A. in ver. 31 
that Paul was thinking of so great results as the aim, not of his assertion, 
but of the thing asserted,—a view which agrees thoroughly with his relig- 
ious contemplation of the world, Rom. v. 20, vil. 18, viii. 17, xi. 315; 2 
Cor. iv. 7, vil. 9, al. He looks upon everything as fitted into the plan of 
moral redemption under the government of God. —iva xai of éy. yuv. K.7.A.] 
The meaning is : Ln order that each may keep himself inwardly independent of 
the relations of his earthly life,—that the husband should not by his married 
state lose the moral freedom of his position of a Christian in heart and life ; 
that the sorrowful should not do so through his tribulation, nor the joyful 
through his good fortune, nor the merchantman through his gain, nor he 


—_ 


1Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
phylact, Beza, Grotius, a@/., including Bill- 
roth, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Reiche, 
Ewald, Maier, Neander. 

2 Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Vulgate, 
Erasmus, Calvin, @., including Heydenreich 


and Riickert. 

3 There is therefore no ground here for 
beginning a new sentence with 76 Aorov 
iva, and taking tva in the imperative sense 
(comp. on v, 2). So Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 
180.". . > 


— 


CHAP. ‘VII.,'31, 32. 1%3 


who uses the world through his use of it. We sce the reverse of this inde- 
pendent attitude in Luke xiv. 18-20. There the heart cleaves to temporal 
things as its treasure, Matt. vi. 21. By giving iva its proper reference, it is 
made clear that Paul neither designs to lay down rules here (‘‘ that the mar- 
ried ought to be as though unmarried,” etc., Riickert, with many others), 
nor to depict the uncertainty of temporal possessions (Grotius and Pott) ; which 
latter meaning is what Reiche also brings out : ‘‘quandoquidem propediem 
mutata rerum terrestrium facie, lactitiae et tristitiac causis mox evanidis, 
tempus deficiet malis bonisve sensu percipiendis.” — kat oi Eyovtes yuv.| Hven the 
married. This xai singles out the first point for special emphasis, because it 
was the one on which the discussion chiefly turned ; «ai in the instances 
which follow is the simple and. —oi dyopat. &¢ py Katéy.] the buyers as not 
possessing (2 Cor. vi. 10), that, namely, which they buy. —ée¢ py Kxarayp. | 
may mean, like the Latin abuti, so far as the word in itself is concerned, 
either : as not abusing it,’ or: as not using it (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, 
Estius, a/., including Pott, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander). Comp. ix. 18. 
So frequently in Greek writers ; see Krebs, p. 291; Loesner, p. 280 f. 
The latter of the two meanings should have the preference here from the 
analogy of the preceding clauses. The compound verb—which ought not 
to have the sense of at one’s own pleasure (Hofmann) imported into it—serves 
merely to give greater emphasis to the idea ; see Bremi, ad Isocr. Panegyr. 
§ ix. p. 21; Herodian. viii. 4. 22. Translate : Those who use this (pre-Mes- 
sianic) world as not making use of it. There is no reason either for taking 
xatayp. in the sense of wsing wp (Reiche, Ewald), because this meaning, al- - 
though in itself admissible on linguistic grounds (Diog. Laert. v. 69 ; Lys. 
p. 153. 46 ; Isocr. p. 55 D), only weakens the force of the antithesis in a 
way contrary. to the relation subsisting between all the other antitheses. (v) 
— yp7jofa in the sense of wti with an accusative (see the critical remarks) 
occurs here only in the N. T. ;* in classic Greek not at all (in Xen. Ages. 
xi. 11, the true reading is tr weyaddgpove), and seldom in later Greek (Schae- 
fer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 691). See also Bornemann, Acta apost. I. p. 222. 
Kataypyo0a, however, often occurs in that sense with the accusative (Lucian, 
Prom. 4 ; Plut. Demetr. 23), and it may have been occasioned here by the 
writer’s thinking of the compound verb. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
p. 157 f. [E. T. 181]. 

Vv. 31, 32. Lachmann places only a comma after roérov, in which he is 
followed by Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, and Maier. From rapdye on to 
etvae would thus form collectively a ground for the preceding kai of ypépevor 
«.t.A. This would be correct, if the foregoing words conveyed an exhorta- 
tion, or if iva in ver. 29 were dependent upon roiro dé gnu. Since, how- 
ever, what is conveyed in the preceding statement is the design of God, the 
full stop after ro#rov should be retained ; the words from rapdyex on to Tob- 
tov form thus a confirmatory addition tool ypdépuevor . . . Kataypepevor, While 





1 Syriac, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theo- Paul givesus here theexplanation of his 
phylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Corne- foregoing paradox. 


lius & Lapide, a/., including Olshausen and 2 Hence Fritzsche (de conform. Lachm., p. 
Billroth, the latter of whom considers that 31) rejects it as an error of the copyists. 
. fr 


174 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


6220 dé, again, marks the advance to something new, to what Paul, in view 
of this passing away of the fashion of this world, now desires of his readers, 
namely, that they should be ayépiprvor, i.e. without worldly cares (see vv. 33, 
34). — rapdyer] is passing away, in accordance with the xaipd¢ cvveoradp. in 
ver. 29. Td cyjua, habitus, i.e. status externus. See Wetstein. It is not 
the transitory character of earthly things in general that is meant (so most 
of the older expositors and Billroth ; comp. also Hofmann), but the expiry 
of the aidv oiroc, the end of which is the world-embracing eatastrophe of 
the Parousia, the transformation of the form of this world, and therewith 
of its whole temporal constitution, into the new heaven and the new earth. 
Comp. 1 John ii. 17 ; Rev. xxi. 1; Rom. viii. 19 ff. ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ; Matt. 
v. 18. Grotius, Valckenaer, and Flatt are wrong in holding that the mean- 
ing is: ‘‘non manebunt, quae nunc sunt, res tranquillae, sed mutabuntur 
in turbidas,” and that the expression is taken from the language of the 
theatre (changing the scene, Eurip. Jon. 166 ; Lucian, Herm. 86). Our 
rendering is demanded by vv, 26, 29, and by the eschatological view of the 
ND 2 éx.t.A.] Comp. éyo dé tu. deidoza in ver. 28. —ra 
cov Kupiov (the cause of Christ) is more precisely defined by what follows. 
— The reading dpéce:, how he shall please, and dpéon, how he may please 
(see Stallbaum, ad Sympos. p. 216 C ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 350), are equal- 
ly suitable so far as the sense is counardes 

Ver. 84. Taking the reading peyép. x. 9 yur) x. 97 niistlite (see the critical 
remarks), we have: The wife, too, and the maiden are divided,’ i.e. they are 
severed from each other as regards their interests, are separate in what they 
care for, personae quae diversae trahuntur. The way in which pepifecbar is 
used (see Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 195) to denote division into different 
tendencies, views, party-positions, is well known (Matt. xii. 25, 26 ; Mark 
iii, 24-26 ; Polybius, viii. 23. 9 ; Herodian, iii. 10. 6, iv. 3. 3) ; but the 
expression is selected here in reference to the different kinds of pepimuvav. 
Theophylact says well : 





ov THY avTny Exovot dpovtida, GAAa peueplopévat etot Tai¢ 
orovdaic, Kal 7 piv mepi GAAa orovddler, 4 dé wept adda. Comp. Theodoret. 
The simple rendering : ‘‘ There is a difference” (Chrysostom, Luther, Gro- 
tius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Heydenreich, and others), would still conduct 
one back to the sense divisa est, but would give too general and meaningless 
an idea. —Meuép. is in the singular, because it stands at the head of the 
sentence, and 7 yvv7 x. 7) mapfévog embraces the female sex as a whole made 
up of two halves. Comp. Kihner, II. p. 58 f.; Bernhardy, p. 416 ; Butt- 


1 If we adopt Lachmann’s reading (de- betrothed maiden, in his opinion, is no 


But in the whole context 


fended especially by Hammond among the 
older expositors), which Ewald also follows 
(leaving out, however, the second 7 a&yasos) 
the meaning will be: The married man 
cares... how he may please his wife, and is 
divided (in hisinterest). And the unmarried 
wife (widowed or divorced) and the unmar- 
ried maiden cares, ete. Hofmann, too, pre- 
fers this reading, taking the «ai, which it 
has before 7 yvv7, in the sense of also. The 
Pa 


longer ayapos. 
there is only the simple distinction made 
between married and unmarried persons. 
Betrothed maidens, too, belong to the lat- 
ter class ; comp. ver. 86: yaueirwoav. [Tre- 
gelles and Westcott & Hort follow Lach- 
mann, but Tischendorf and the Canterbury 
Revision adhere to the received text.—T. 
W.C.] 


CHAP. VII., 35. 175 


mann, neut. Gr. p. 110 f. [E. T. 126]. — iva 7 dyia «.7.4.] Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 
1. This moral consecration to God of her whole personality, which she 
strives after, is the ré¢ apéces TH Kupiw explicated. One can hardly conceive 
that Paul avoided the latter phrase on the ground of possible misconstruc- 
tion (Hofmann), This, considering the sacredness of the idea of dpéokew 
T@ Kupiv, would be a piece of prudery, which is unlike him. 


Norr.—There is no ground for inferring from vv. 32-34 that Paul, himself 
unwedded, looked ‘‘somewhat askance” upon marriage (Rickert). To assume 
any such onesidedness of view on his part would be avery hasty proceeding (see 
on ver. 2). On the contrary, what we have here is not his view of how, from 
the nature of the case, things must necessarily subsist,! but only his experience of how 
in point of fact they usually did subsist. This experience he (6 dyauoc) had ar- 
rived at, on the one hand, by consideration of his own case and that of many 
other unmarried persons ; and, on the other, by observing the change of inter- 
ests which was wont to set in with those who married. We have here, there- 
fore, a purely empirical support for the preference of celibacy,—a preference, 
however, which with Paul is simply relative, depending upon the nearness of 
the Parousia and the end of the world, and also upon the subjective gift of 
being holy in body and spirit (comp. Acts xiv. 4). The expectation of these 
events being so near has remained unfulfilled, and thereby is invalidated the 
Pauline support which has been often found in our text for celibacy, which, as 
a legal requirement, is in principle thoroughly un-Pauline (comp. ver. 35). 
The apostle, moreover, is speaking generally, and not to one special class 
among his readers. 


Ver. 35. Tovro] refers to the recommendation of single life contained in 
vv. 26-34. — rpdc 76 tu. aitdv ovud.] for your own advantage. The genitive 
with cuudépov used as a substantive, as in x. 33; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Rep. p. 3388 C. — ovy iva x«.t.2.] explaining more in detail, negatively and 
positively, the zpic . . . cvudépov. To cast a noose upon one is a figurative 
expression, originally borrowed from the’ chase (less probably, from war- 
fare), for the idea of depriving of freedom (bringing under binding and lim- 

iting relations). Comp. Prov. vii. 21, and see Wetstein and Loesner, in 
toe. The sense of ‘giving occasion to scruples” (Billroth, comp. Bengel) 
does not correspond so well with the figure and the connection. — a2Aa rpd¢ 
TO ebay. x.t.A2.| but to promote the habit of comeliness and undivided waiting upon 
the Lord (in faithfulness to Christ). For this habit prevailed chiefly, accord- 
ing to the apostle’s experience, on the side of the dyayoe ; see vv. 32-84, 
where, too, he makes it clear beyond doubt what comeliness he means here 
—namely, such a manifestation of the inner life in all outward embodiment, 
as corresponds with consecration to the Lord. It is not merely chastity in 
the narrower sense that is intended, but all moral purity and consecration 
in so far as these manifest themselves in demeanour, in speech, gesture, 
bearing, etc., as the comely form of Christian life, as the ethical ‘‘ decorwm” 


1 Paul himself, it is plain, had intercourse were married. This in opposition to Cropp 
with numbers of eminent servants and in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 102. 
handmaids of the Lord (Priscilla, etc.) who 


176 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of the Christian. Its sacred nature and the foul contrasts to it are set forth 
in Rom. xiii. 18, 14.—The dative of appropriation, 76 Kvpiw and drepior., are 
conjoined with the eizdp., used as a substantive, to make up the unity of the 
idea, — eirdpedpo¢g does not occur elsewhere. Hesychius explains it by xadéc 
rapauévov. —areptor.| ‘‘absque distractione, 7.¢. dvev Tod mepyuvavy Ta Tod 
xédonov,” Kypke, Il. p, 207. Comp. sepioracfa, Luke x. 40. Regarding 
the connection of the word with the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
415. Xenophon, Ages. i. 4, has adsacrdorwc. The adverb attaches itself to 
ebrdp. defining its meaning precisely. See on xii. 28.1 

Ver. 86. Aé] introduces something opposed to the eicynuov. — doynuoveiv| 
means doyfova eivar (COMP., evoxnuoveiv = evoyjuova elvat, Plat. Legg. v. p. 
732 C), and may therefore be explained either in the active sense (to act dis- 
honourably, conduct oneself in a dishonourable way, Plato, Pol. vi. p. 506 D, 
Theaet. p. 165 B ; Xen. de re eq. xi. 6 ; Herodian, v. 8. 16 ; Lucian, de sacrif. 
7), or in the passive sense (to have dishonour, Eur. Hee. 407 ; Herodian, viii. 3. 
21; Deut. xxv. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 7). The former of the two interpretations is the 
common and the correct one, namely : if any one thinks that he is acting dishon- 
ourably towards his virgin (daughter or ward), 7.e. if he thinks that he is bring- 
ing disgrace upon her ; which means, however, not the disgrace of old maid- 
enhood (see Soph. Ant. 810 ff., O. Rex. 1492 ff. ; Eur. Hel. 291 ; comp. Ecclus. 
xlii. 9 ; and Lennep, ad Phalar. p. 362), but the dishonour of seduction, 
which the father or guardian fears he may give occasion to by refusing per- 
mission to marry ; see the following context (against Theodoret : 6 d2 rip 
ayauiavy axoouiav broAauBdvorv, Theophylact, al.). Taking it in the passive 
sense, we have : 7f any one thinks to have disgrace in respect of his virgin (from 
seduction, or her .being left unwedded). So in substance the Syriac 
(‘‘despici’”’), Grotius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Heydenreich, Pott, Neander ; 
comp. Hofmann, who holds that what is here expressed is the matter of fact 
of its being the father’s fault that the daughter remains unmarried. But even 
apart from the consideration that acynu. is most commonly found in the ac- 
tive meaning (see also xiii. 5), there is this against the second rendering, 
that éri with the accusative takes for granted that acynyoveiv implies activity, 
since it states the direction in which it is exerted (comp. aoynuoveiv sig tiva, 
Dion. Hal. ii. 26). — vopiter] ‘‘ Si perspecto filiae suae ingenio judicet, coeliba- 
tui non esse aptam,” Calvin. —édav 7 brépaxu.] is the case, in connection with 
which that ci dé reg doynuoveiv, x.t.2. is supposed : in case she pass her time, 
pass the highest point of her youthful bloom. As regards the aku itself, see 
Plato, Rep. p. 460 E: dp’ obv coe Evvdoxei pétrptog ypdvog axuyg Ta eixoow ét7 
yuvait, avdpi 62 ra tprdxovra, and Stallbaum, ad hune loc. ; other definitions 
of the age may be seen in Locella, ad. Xen. Eph. p. 145. Paul’s opinion is, 
that before the dxuf is reached the doynuoveiv . . . vouiter is not likely to 
take place with the father or guardian of the girl ; but, judging from ex- 
perience, he conceived that the maiden who is érépaxuoc would be more 
ready to yield to a lover, if she is not allowed to marry. Respecting the 


1 [The image here and the words are well illustrated by the little narrative Luke x. 
39-42 in the original.—T. W. C.] aia 


CHAP. VII., 3%, Lee 


word irépaxu., which is not found in ancient Greek, see Eustath. Z7.i. p. 11, 
31; Od. p. 1915, 29. The classical writers use instead of it the perfect of 
Tapakudtev, aS in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 233; or the adjective rapakuaorinj, as in 
Galen, VI. p. 312, 14. — cat obtw¢ ddeidec yivecba| depends on the ¢ :' and 
if so (namely, that the virgin marry), it must be. Thus there is added to 
the subjective condition of things, expressed in dé tic doynu. x.7.4., the corre- 
sponding (not heterogeneous, as Hofmann objects) objective condition on 
the part of the maiden, whose natural temperament makes marriage needful. 
It is quite akin to the German phrase : wnd wenn’s nicht anders sein kann 
{and if it cannot be otherwise] ; the expression has a somewhat euphemis- 
tic turn, as referring to the daughter’s inclination to marriage, which de- 
termines the dgeiAex. According to Riickert, x. oir. 6¢. yiv. depends upon 
éav : and she must remain so (i.e. unwedded). But the indicative dd@eire is 
decisive against this rendering ; and what an amount of straining is needed 
to make yivecOa equivalent to remain! for she 7s unwedded, and, if she so 
remains, cannot become so. — 6 OéAe roteitw] not : let him do what pleases him 
(so ordinarily ; but this is contrary to the context ; see what follows, and 
the preceding dgeiAev), but : let him do what he intends (to give his virgin in 
marriage). Theodoret puts it well : 7d doxoty mpattétw. — yapueitwoav| name- 
ly, the virgin and he who wishes to have her. It is arbitrary, considering the 
general form of the whole discussion (ver. 25), to maintain, as Riickert 
does, that the plural refers to a particular couple respecting whom the Co- 
rinthians had asked a question. Wolf, Heydenreich, and others adopt a 
needlessly harsh assumption, that Paul passes here from the singular to the 
plural (the virgins). Billroth again propounds the very unlikely view that 
‘* the youths” should be supplied here as the subject, and airy as the object. 

Ver. 37. He who, on the other hand, stands stedfast in his heart, is of a 
stedfast and unchangeable mind, firm in disposition and resolution. Comp. 


xy. 58; Col. i. 23, iv. 12. —yq Eyov avayxnv| without having constraint (ob- 


jective necessity), as he, in ver. 36, whom the natural temperament of his 
virgin causes to fear the adcynuoveiv before explained: — éfovciav dé Eyer x.7.2. | 
contrasted with the wy éy. avayk. (dé, but rather) as the correlative positive 
state of free disposal in respect. of what he himself wills. Strictly speaking, 
therefore, we should have the participle here, but instead, there is again a 
change in the construction. Comp. on iv. 14; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 327 
f, |E. T. 382]. — rovro] is not explained—though this is the common suppo- 
sition—by the infinitive which follows ; were that the case, we should have 


70 tTypeiv, Or (as in Od. i. 82; 1 Thess. iv. 3; Jas. 1. 27, al.) the simple 


infin. (comp. the critical remarks), But Pau] leaves the reader to gather 
from the connection what is meant by rotro (namely, not giving the maiden 





1 Theophylact begins the apodosis with 
Kai oUTws: yeveodw, dyot, Kal ovTwW, aS; 6 
dere. wovettw. In that case x. otros ob. yiv. 
would be quite superfluous, the cai deprived 
of its reference, and ovy auapr. would not 
suit the obligatory ofeiAex. Similarly Hof- 
mann, who follows the same view, para- 
phrasing it thus : “‘ This too (?) is a necessity 


) 


arising from the nature of the case, that he 
do what he will.” Laurent also makes «at 
ovTws Of. yiv. the apodosis, expounding it 
to mean: soit must be in this case also. The 
clauses which follow he considers explana- 
tory ; and cat must go back forits reference 
all the way to ver. ¥: not merely in the case 
of the mvpovada. 


1%8 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in marriage). The design of this robro xéxpixev (conelusum habet) is then de- 
clared by row typeiv : in order to keep (to preserve in her maidenly state) his 
own maiden. And this is not a mere periphrasis for not giving in marriage 
(as de Wette objects), but rather the design which the father or guardian 
has in his rovro xéxpexev, by virtue of his right to dispose of his own child: ob- 
serve the emphatic r7v éavrtod rapdévov. That the maiden’s will should be 
left entirely out of account by Paul, can surprise no one who is aware of 
the power given to fathers among the Jews (comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 267) 
and Greeks (Herm. Privatalterth. § 30. 2 ff.). — xaAé¢ rocet] in the sense of 
action, morally right, the positive side of the ovy dyuaprdve: of ver. 36, and 
in so far stronger here ; hence, too, it is represented in ver. 28 by xpeiccov 
co.ei in relation to the caAéc¢ rovei, which is equivalent to oy duaptéver. 

Ver. 38. Result of vv. 36, 37, cai. . . wai, as well. . . as also. Paul had 
thought of saying xatd¢ rovet in the second clause also, but thereupon 
strengthens his expression (xpeicoov) so as to correspond with the relations of 
the two predicates, oby duapr. in ver. 36, and Kadéc¢ moet in ver. 37. —6 
ixyau.| he who marries her (his virgin, ver. 37) out (gives her out of his family 
in marriage). This going ‘‘out” is not taken into account in the second 
clause. — xpeicoov| for see ver. 34. Regarding éxyay., comp. Matt. xxiv. 
38 ; it is not preserved in Greek writers. 

Vv. 39, 40. An appended rule respecting second marriage on the part of 
women, occasioned probably by questions from the Corinthians. — déderaz] 
sc. TH avdpi ; she may not separate herself from him and marry another. 
Comp. ver. 27; Rom. vil. 2.—@ déree yaundjvat| to whom she desires to be 
married. Comp. Mark x. 12. Tapei uév yap 6 avyp, yapeitat 08 4 yuva, Schol. 
ad Hur. Med. 593. As regards the later form yay7djra:, instead of the Attic 
yauedpva, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — pévor év Kupig] only in the Lord, 
not apart from Christ as the specifically determining element of the new 
union ; only in a Christian way, i.e. only to a Christian, se. let her be mar- 
ried.’ So among the early interpreters, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, 
Jerome, Theodoret, Grotius (who puts it happily : intra ecclesiam), Estius, 
al., also Olshausen and de Wette. This does not run counter to ver. 12 
ff., where, in fact, those mixed marriages are meant which date from the pre- 
Christian period, and in which only one spouse has become Christian. 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, and others, includ- 
ing Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, 
Ewald, all understand the phrase to mean : in a Christian spirit, acting as a 
Christian should, in the fear of the Lord; etc. (several of the above-named 
interpreters, as Flatt, Rickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, include also the 
point that the husband must be a Christian, or lay the chief stress upon 
this, as Hofmann and Weiss). But what we have here is plainly a limita- 
tion of the © 3éA2e. so emphatically put first. * Moreover, the wider and more 
general the meaning ascribed to év Kvp/w, the more inappropriate it seems 
in connection with the foregoing definite rules, which all take for granted 


1 Paul’s view, therefore, is not in accordance with the legislative permission of marriage 
between Christians and Jews. / 


my, ea OF OF ee 
= * 


NOTES. 179 


that the action is Christian. — naxapiwr.| more blessed, i.e. not merely more 
spared from troubles (vv. 26, 28), but, in accordance with the higher ref- 
erence which paxdp. invariably has in the N. T., enjoying the blessed rela- 
tion, which arises out of withdrawal from worldly cares and self-surrender 
to Christ. See vv. 32-34. As to greater blessedness in heaven, which some 
have dragged in here in the interests of celibacy (Ambrosiaster, Cornelius a 
Lapide, al., including Hirscher, Moral, UI. p. 502), there is not a word of 
that in the text, even if we should read éora in place of éoriv. — xara r. éupv 
yvounv] éufv carries the emphasis of apostolic self-consciousness, — doka dé 
Kayo «.7.A.| so that I therefore may expect you to regard my opinion, not 
as a mere individual judgment, but as arrived at under the influence of the 
Holy Spirit which is imparted (éyecv) to me also, and hence as worthy to be 
received and followed.-—Respecting doxé, mihi videor, the note of Estius 
may suffice : ‘‘minus dicit, plus volens intelligi.” Comp. iv. 9.— Kayo] 
like other teachers who have received His gifts.—In the two expressions 
coming together—of which doxé has a touch of irony (comp. Dissen, ad Dem. 
de Cor. p. 230 f.)—there is implied a side-glance, but whether precisely at 
the Petrine party (Neander, Riibiger, al.) may be doubted. It is safer to 
say generally : at opponents of his full standing as an apostle in Corinth. 
Comp. Calvin. (w) 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITor. 
(nr) Paul’s command and the Lord’s. Ver. 10. 


Tt is important to insist upon the author’s explanation of the words, ‘‘ I com- 
mand; yet not I, but the Lord.” This is not a distinction between what is in- 
spired and what isnot. What the Apostle means is simply that the Corinthians 
had no need to apply to him for instruction on the matter of divorce, because 
Christ had already taught that the marriage bond could not be dissolved at the 
option of the parties. 


(s) ‘* Now are they holy.’’ Ver. 14. 


Stanley, while agreeing with the opinion that this verse is against the practice 
of infant baptism in Paul’s time, yet says that it asserts the principle upon 
which that ordinance is founded, viz. that family ties do in themselves conse- 
erate those who are bound by them, and that the children of Christian parents 
may therefore be considered as among the people of God, and that from this 


- would follow the natural consequence that the whole family would participate 


_ in the same rites as belonged properly, and in the highest sense, only to those 


members or that member of it who was strictly a believer. st matrimonium 
Christianum est soboles Christiana (Bengel). 


(rv) Desertion a cause of divorce. Ver. 15. 


Hodge’s explanation of this matter is somewhat different and apparently 
better: ‘* There is no conflict here between Christ’s command and Paul’s in- 
structions. Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her 
husband) on account of difference of religion, or for any other reason but the 
one above specified (Matt. ver. 32). The Apostle only adds that if the believ- 


180 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ing party be, without just cause, put away, he or she is free.’ The marriage 
contract thus wilfully broken no longer binds. Hence wilful desertion is 
_ judged to be a legitimate ground of divorce. 


(vu) ‘* Use itrather.”’ Ver. 21, 


No question of scholarship has been more vexed in earlier or later times than 
the one whether the Apostle here recommends the slave to choose liberty or a 
continuance in bondage. The arguments on both sides are nearly equally 
balanced. (See a neat summation in Stanley in loco.) Meyer's reference to the 
kai may be turned in this way: ‘‘ Wert thou called, being a slave? Care not 
for it; but if also (i.e, in addition to your being called), thou canst become 
free, prefer to use the opportunity.’’ So Hodge, Speaker’s Com., Principal 
Brown, Beet. Kling (in Lange) and Ellicott’s Com, take the other view. 


(v) ** Using as not abusing.’’ Ver. 30. 


On the author’s view of these words it is obvious to remark that if the Apos- 
tle meant the same thing in each clause, it.is impossible to conceive why in 
one case he used the simple verb, and in the other a compound one. The force 
of the preposition is usually to make the verb mean using to the full or to 
excess = overusing (compare ix. 18, and for the force of the preposition the origi- 
nal of xi. 32). The Authorized Version is sufficiently accurate for all practi- 


cal purposes. The whole clause is, as Bengel says, a true description of Christian 
self-denial. 


(w) Celibacy. Ver. 40. 


On the whole subject of this chapter it may be justly said that while it 
seems to favor celibacy, yet it does not, upon a closer view ; for the preference 
for single life is founded expressly upon the impending calamities (26-31), and, 
in connection with this, on the greater freedom from worldly cares ; and be- 
sides, here the Apostle is meeting a particular case of a special kind, while, 
when elsewhere treating largely of relative duties (Eph. vv. 22, 23), so far 
from speaking of marriage as an inferior state, he makes it represent the high- 
est and holiest fellowship of which man is capable — that of Christ and His 
church. There is nothing in all the chapter which indicates or sustains the 
ascetic views which prevailed a few centuries later. 

It is also justly remarked that it is not often so expressly stated in the New 
Testament as it is here, that the practice of the highest duties of Christianity is 
compatible, with every station and condition of life that is not in: itself unlaw- 
ful. If even the degraded state of slavery be consistent with the cultivation 
of the true spirit of Christian liberty ; if even the great religious divisions of 
Jew and Gentile may be regarded as alike compatible with the true service of 
God, then in all other states of life equally the spirit of the Apostolic injunc- 
tions may be observed where, in the letter, they seem most disregarded. Free- 
dom from earthly cares may be maintained in the married as well as in the single 
state ; indifference to worldly gain may exist in riches, no less than in pover- 
ty ; our nearness to God depends not on our desertion of one religious com- 
munity for another, but on our keeping His commandments in whatever religious 


community His providence has placed us, whether circumcision or uncircum- 
we 4 
cision. 


> <a 


CHAP. VIII. 181 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 2, dé] is wanting in A B &, min. several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by 
Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., as Griesb., too, had recommended. Added for the 
sake of connection, as was also yap (after the first ore) in ver. 8, which is omit- 
ted likewise in A B 817, al. — eidévac] It is true that AB DEFGS, min. 
Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have éyvwxévar (recommended by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.) ; but what goes before it and what fol- 
lows make it clear that éyv. is a gloss. Thereading civa, too, in 39, 91, 109, tells 
in favour of eidévar. — obdé7w obd2v éyvoxe] Lachm, and Riick. have oirw éyvo, 
which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very con- 
siderable weight, in.substance the same asthat in favour of éyvexévac instead 
of eidévar. But the peculiarity of the emphatic Recepta does not show the hand 
of a gloss-writer, What has taken place has rather been the reduction of the 
original reading to the simple oizw éyvo, at first, perhaps, by omitting the su- 
perfluous ovdév, all the more readily that it was preceded by oidérw, Whereupon 
éyvoxe became transformed into éyvu, either from the next word beginning with 
K, or by the influence of the inf. yyéva: which follows, while oidétw was dis- 
placed, as in many other cases (John vii. 39; Luke xxiii. 53 ; Acts vili. 16), by 
the more familiar oi7w. — Ver. 4..érepoc] is wanting in ABDEFG NS* min. 
with several vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by 
Lachm. and Riick. But why should any one have added érepo¢? That it should 
be omitted, on the other hand, was all the more likely, because the word seemed 
superfluous, and might even appear offensive (‘‘ there is no other God but one’’ 
might by possibility mean: “there is but one other God’’). — Ver. 7. TH ovvedyjoer] 
Lachm. and Riick. read 77 ovvyfeia, with A B &, some min. Copt. Bashm. Aeth. 
Syr. p. (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Rinck. 77 
cuverdyoet, however, as the more difficult reading, should be retained. See also 
Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 200 ff. It was noted on the margin how the ovvei- 
dnote Tod eiddAov arose, namely, by rH cvrnfeia, and then this phrase easily crept 
into the place of the original 7, cvved. — It is preferable, however, to put éw¢ 
aptt before tov eiddAov (Lachm, Riick. and Tisch.), with BD EFG 8 31, 87, 
116, and several vss. and Fathers ; in the Recepia we have transposition in the 
interest of the construction. — Ver. 8. zapiotno.] AB 8, min. Copt. Bashm. 
Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damasc. have rapaorjcer. Recommended by 
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the presents which 
follow gave rise to the same tense here. Yvvioryjot, which has but weak sup- 
port, is a gloss. — There is considerable evidence (especially A B &) in favour 
of omitting the ydp, and putting the negative clause first in what follows 
(Lachm. Tisch.). The transcriber would have a mechanical inclination to place 
the positive half of the staterhent first. — Ver. 9. There is decisive evidence for 
reading aoGevéowy instead of the Recepta doevotow. — Ver, 11. kai arodeirac] In 
place of xai, A has ody after the verb (so Riick.), while B 8* 17, Copt. Bashm. 
Goth. Clem. have ydp, which is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch, The last of the 


182 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

three readings is the true one ; yép not being understood, was explained in 
some cases by «ai, in others by oiv. Instead.of amoAcita:, read with Lachm. 
Riick. and Tisch. avéAdvrai, on the authority of A B D* &, several min. Copt. 
Goth, Clem. Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, and Damase. The future arises 
from a mechanical alteration of the text after oixodoun§.— ddeAdé6c| Lachm. 
Riick. and Tisch. have 6 ddeAdéc¢ after yréce:, which has conclusive evidence in 
its favour. The fecepta originated in a mistaken attempt to help out the con- 
struction, — ézi] Lachm. Riick, and Tisch. read év, which is Bae by de- 
cisive testimony. 


ConTENTS.—To eat flesh offered to idols is a thing morally indifferent for 
all who understand rightly what an idolis (vv. 1-6). Still, for the sake 
of those who are more weak, we should refrain from so eating, if it is a 
stumbling-block to them (vv. 7-18). 

Ver. 1. Aé] marks the transition to a new subject, which the queries from 
Corinth led the apostle to discuss. — repi tov eidwaod.] Since this is taken 
up again in ver. 4, it is clear that vv. 1-3 cannot form an independent series 
of thoughts (Hofmann), but that ver. 3 is the close of*a logical parenthesis 
(not a grammatical one, because at what is its true beginning the construc- 
tion undergoes no interruption). It is not to be made to begin at dre (for) 
mavrec, as is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Valck- 
enacr, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maier ; for the fact 
that 7 yvdéore ovowwi stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense 
of érc in ver. 4 (that), are decisive against this. The true commencement is 
only at 7 yvdore evoroi (So, with older commentators, Pott, Riickert, de Wette, 
Osiander, Ewald, Neander ; Billroth is undecided on the point), so that 
the preceding yvéow éyouev has very naturally given occasion to the warn- 
ings which begin with 7 yracic gvowwi. — eidwAddvra, things offered to idols, 
kpéa eidwAdduta, 4 Macc. v. 1, are those parts of the animals offered in hea- 
then sacrifices, which remained over after the priests had received their 
share, and which were either consumed in the temple or at home in connec- 
tion with sacrificial feasts (Dougt. Anal. I. p. 234 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. 
Alterth. § xxviii. 22), or else (by poor or miserly persons) sold in the flesh 
market. Comp. on Acts xv. 20.’ The Christians might thus easily come to 
eat such meat, either through being invited to a feast by heathen acquaint- 
ances (x. 27), or, again, by buying it in the market (x. 25), and thereby 
offence would be given to scrupulous consciences ; while, on the other hand, 
those of a freer spirit, and with more of Paul’s own mode of thinking, might 
be apt to make light of the matter, and withal forget how a Christian ought 
to spare the weak. To assign the strong and the weak to one or other of 
the four parties respectively, is, to say the least of it, a very uncertain pro- 


1 Paul, however, makes no reference to 
the decree of the apostles either here or 
elsewhere, which is in keeping with his con- 
sciousness of his own direct and indepen- 
dent apostolic dignity. Comp. on Acts Joc. 
cit., and on Gal., Introd. §8. Moreover, 
this very chapter, along with chap. x., 
shows plainly that, in virtue of his inde- 


pendent position as an apostle, he had early 
enough shaken himself clear of all applica- 
tions of the temporary agreement come to at 
Jerusalem which might conflict, upon points 
in themselves indifferent, with the princi- 
ples elsewhere enunciated by him, although 
coupling this with a wise forbearance 
towards those who were weak in the faith. 


CHAP. VIII. , 1. 183 


cess, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (Ols- 
hausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Ribiger). As regards the weak, see 
ver. 7, and the remark subjoined to it. —oidaywev] should not be joined di- 
rectly with wep? «.r.2., but the latter clause is to be taken as invii. 1 : Wow, 
as respects meat offered to idols, we know that, etc. Hofmann, following 
Semler, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads oida wév (L know, 
indeed, that), by which he gains nothing but a pév solitarium, which would be 
all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause, 
where he ought to find 7 dé yvdorc, follows immediately. There is still less 
reason here for writing it as two words than in Rom. vii. 14, where it is, in 
point of fact, succeed by a dé. The subject of oidayev consists of all those, 
besides the apostle himself, of whom the yréow éyouev holds good, that is 
to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) more enlightened Christians : 
I and those like myself in this. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrysos- 
tom); mpdc tod¢ Tedeiove diaréyetat, adele Tove aTEAEoTépovc. Since oidayev and 
éyouev moust have one and the same subject, Riickert is wrong in taking the 
first indefinitely : 7t 7s well known. Olshausen understands it of all Chris- 
tians, and seeks to remove the contradiction between that and ver. 7 in this 
way : he distinguishes yraoue and 7 yvaouc, making the former to be a certain 
ground of knowledge in general ; the latter, the specific knowledge of how the 
Jorm and the power of idolatry stand related to each other. But the yréorc in 
ver. 1, although without the article, has been already defined very exactly 
as regards its contents by rep? tr. eidwd., and still more by ver. 4, so that 7 
yvéore in ver. 7 can mean nothing else but the yréo.e under discussion ; con- 
sequently the contradiction would remain. De Wette’s exposition is better ; 
he holds that in ver. 1 Paul is speaking quite generally, and, as it were, 
theoretically (comp. also Ewald), while in ver: 7 he refers specially to the 
Corinthians. But such a theoretic generality would have needed to be ex- 
pressed by the first person alone without rdvrec, if the ov« év raow in ver. 7 
were to have any logical pertinence ; while, on the other hand, if we are 
to maintain that general meaning in ver. 1 as it stands, we should have ar- 
bitrarily to insert into the wdvrec there the unexpressed idea, ‘‘ properly 
speaking, all Christians as such” (Ewald), or to give to the éyouev the sense 
of ‘‘ should have.”* Others, following Er. Schmid (‘‘ we at Corinth are all 
wise enough”), regard the Corinthians as the subject, and take (Nésselt, 
Opuscula, II. p. 152, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt) the words zepi 
. . - éxouev, and then ére oidév eidwAov in ver. 4 on to ver. 6, as quotations 
from the Corinthian letter, the refutation of which begins with ver. 7. But 
this is unnatural ; for in that case Paul would have brought the passage 7 
yaoi pvotol K.T.A., On to ver. 3, into his refutation as well. Further, itis 
contrary to the apostle’s habitual way of writing, for he always marks out 
the words of an opponent as such by some formula ; and lastly, it is quite 
unnecessary, seeing that the supposed contradiction between ver. 1 and ver. 
7 vanishes on considering the change of person (from the jirst in ver. 1 to 
the third in ver. 7). — yviow] have knowledge ; of what? is plain from the 





1S0 Elwert, Progr., Quaestiones ad philol. sacram. N. T., Tiibing. 1860, p. 17. 


184 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols should be regarded. 
The contents of the statement are more fully expressed in ver. 4. 

Vv. 1-8. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to 
yooow éyouev. — The article turns the abstract yvéorc into a noun appellative. 
—The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (iv. 6, v. 2); but the 
love (to the brethren ; comp. Rom. xiv. 14, 15) edifieth (x. 23), furthers the 
progress of the church (viewed as olxodou7 Ocod, see iil. 9) towards Christian 
perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary 7yewovndy to the effectively sympa- 
thetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp. chap. xiii., espe- 
cially ver. 4. — Vv. 2 and 3 explain the preceding statement, both from the 
wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love 
to God. — Since the yréore in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a 
real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (iii. 18), 
Paul characterizes here what he before designated by 7 yraéoru as a doKkeiv 
eldévat tt 3 and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ 
from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of 
believers, he now characterizes the former as dyarayv tov Oedv, One can 
hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole 
passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles. — ri] anything 
whatever, any object of the yraoc. Pott and Flatt interpret : something 
wonderful ; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious 
character of the verse. — oidérw x.7.2.] he knows nothing at all as yet in such 
« way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral 
necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of 
knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character. 
In order to the yréva xaboc dei we must of necessity have love, which regu- 
lates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically 
salutary. Comp. xill. 2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luke 
xxill. 53 ; John xix. 41; Acts viii. 16), Sch6mann, ad Js. p. 469 ; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Crat. p. 398 E). — Ver. 3. oiro¢] with emphasis : he, to the 
exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge. — évwora ir’ 
avtov| This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: ‘‘ God 
recognizes Himself in him ;” but it means simply : this man is known by Him. 
The statement 1s a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete 
by saying : ‘‘it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the 
true sense, but also that he is known of God,” the apostle states simply the 
latter and greater truth, which ofdtself implies the former. The éyvwora: tm 
airov Shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accord- 
ance with its holiness; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation 
between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of 
God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine 
knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which 
God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. (x) The idea, therefore, 
is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner 
experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis,’ so that God in thus 


1 Comp. Constit. ap. Vv. 16.3: bh yeyvwokovtes Oedv Sta Tod Kypvymaros muaTEVoavTEs EyVWTE 


* 


CHAP. VIII., 4, 5. 185 


knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was 
purposed in His own counsel, Ps. 1. 6; Gal. iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 19. Comp. 
Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 258 ff. See also on xiii. 12. Other inter- 
preters supply the thought wt swum discipulum (Erasmus) or inter jilios 
(Calvin), and the like. Comp. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 283. But that is to 
insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est 
(Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, 
al., following Fathers in Suicer, Z’hes. I. p. 762). But this is as much 
against linguistic usage (see on Rom. vii. 15) as Augustine’s edoctus est (so, 
too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nosselt, Rosenmiiller, 
Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a 
Hophal. Olshausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, 
which demands the simple conception of knowing ; he finds in yivéckery (as 
in YT, see on Matt. 1. 25) the bridal (?) relation of the soul to God. 

Ver. 4. Ovv] igitur, takes up again the interrupted statement (ver. 1) ; 
comp. xi. 20, and see on Mark iii. 31, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177. — ric 
Bpéc. 7. eid.] more precise definition of the indefinite rév eidwAoi., ver. 1. 
There is no reason any more than formerly for writing oldayev here as oida 
uév With Hofmann. — érz oid’ eidwa. év kdouw| that there is not an idol in the 
world. Paul’s meaning hereis not: what the heathen adore as gods is some- 
thing absolutely without existence (see, on the contrary, ver. 5 and x. 20) ; 
but : no heathen god exists as the being which the heathen supposes him to 
be ; and so there is no adequate reality, corresponding to the heathen con- 
ception of a god Jupiter, Apollo, etc. (vy) Most of the old interpreters, 
with the Vulgate, Luther, and Beza (also more recently, Michaelis, Rosen- 
miiller, Flatt, Heydenreich), took ovdév to mean nihil: ‘‘that an idol is a 
nonentity.” Comp. Jer. x. 3; Isa. xl. 24, al., Addit. to Esth. iv. 8; 
Sanhedr. f. 63. 2: ‘‘ Noverant utique Israelitae, idolum nihil esse.” Comp. 
also Joseph. Antt. viii. 13. 6. But this must be held incorrect, seeing that 
év tT. kdou@ does not harmonize with it, and because of the parallel expres- 
sion ovdelg Oed¢. — kal bre ovdeic k.T.A.] and that there is no other God but one. 
The ei uf refers simply to ovdelc Oedc, not to érepoc, See on Gal. i, 19. 

Vv. 5, 6. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement 67: oidév 
eidwAov . . . et pp etc. 

Ver. 5. For (yap) even (kai) if really (eitep, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
345 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 202) there exist so-called gods, whether in heaven 
or mearth. Heathenism conceived heaven and earth to be filled with beings 
whom they called gods (Jupiter, Apollo, and so forth ; gods of the woods 
and the rivers, etc.). Paul does not admit the existence of such gods,' but 
merely supposes it, and that with kai cizep, 7.€. even in the case that, if there be 
in reality, if after all, whereby of course ‘‘ in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure 
an injuria sumatur”’ (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834), this, however, not being 
implied in ¢eizep by itself, but by the connection in which it stands here. 


avrov, uaddov S& é€yvaeacOntre V rT’ adToD low that the gods as such existed at all, but 
ca “Inood Tod gwtHpos kK. AvTpwTOU THY held those beings regarded as gods to be 
€AmiCovtwv én avTove demons. Comp. Weiss, 0i6/, Theol. p. 279. 

1 We know from x. 20 that he did not al- 


& 


186 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, etc.; and see Bacumlein, U.c. The supposed case— 
the reality of which is still left to stand on its own footing—is then estab- 
lished, so far as its possibility is concerned, by dozep «.7.2.: as there are, 
indeed, gods many and lords many. What is conceded here is the premiss 
from which that possibility may be drawn as aconsequence. If there exist, 
that is to say, a multitude of superhuman beings, who come under the cate- 
gory of @eoi (in the wider sense) and xtpio, then we must admit that it is 
possible that those whom the heathen call gods—Jupiter, Apollo, and so 
on—have an actual existence.’ The Oeol roAdoi and xktpior roAdoi are, as the 
connection necessarily leads us to understand, not human rulers, deified 
kings, and the like, but the superhuman powers (angels), of whom it is said 


in Deut. x. 17: 6 yap Ktpiog 6 Osd¢ tudv, oitog Oed¢ THv Oedv Kat Kbpiog tov 
2 





9 


xuptov.? Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 8. Most commentators take eici as said e 
gentilium persuasione (so Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Ewald, Nean- 
der, Maier), which would give as the sense of the whole: ‘‘¢f there be in 
reality so-called gods among the heathen, as, indeed, they speak of many gods and 
lords” (de Wette). But this explanation runs counter to the fact that eici 
is put first with emphasis : and the e gentiliwm persuasione is neither express- 
ed nor hinted at in the text, but is a pure insertion of the commentators, 
and that with the less warrant, seeing that it is the emphatic juiv in the 
apodosis that first introduces a contrast with others. This applies, too, 
against the arbitrary distinction made by Billroth, who maintains that only 
the first cici denotes real existence (the Aeydu. Geot being demons, x. 20,) while 
with the second we should supply : in the view of the heathen. Riickert 
takes both the first and second eici in the right sense, but makes eirep 
mean,—contrary to the rules of the language,—although it must be conceded 
that (which is not its meaning even in such passages as those given by 
Kiihner, IT. § 824, note 2), and supposes that the apostle conceived the 
angels and demons to be the realities answering to the Aeydu. Yeot.*— As 
regards «ai ei, etiam, tum, si, which marks the contents of the conditional 
clause as uncertain, comp. on Mark xiv. 29 ; and see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 A. It is here the ‘‘ etiamsi de re in 
cogitatione posita,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 884. Examples of kai yap ¢i, 
Jor even if, may be seen in Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 141. 

Ver. 6. Apodosis : yet have we Christians but one God, the Father, etc. 
Therefore : oidayev bre ovdév eidwrov x.7.4. The éoriv to be supplied after juiv 
is the simple verb substantive. — 42’] as in iv. 15. — Oed¢ 6 rarfp| might be 
taken together here as forming one conception, like Kipioc 6 Oed¢ (Fritzsche, ad 


1The meaning of the verse, therefore, 2 [Hodge, 27 loco, sustains this view strong- 
g 


freely rendered, would be: For evenif we 
suppose that the gods of the heathen nvythology 
have a veal existence, which isno such absurd 
supposition, seeing that there is not merely 
One God and One Lord (in the wider sense 
of these words), but gods many and lords 
many: still for us Christians, etc., ver. 6. 
Hofmann agrees substantially with our ex- 
position of the passage. See also his Schvift- 
bew. I. p. 348. 


ly.—T. W. C.] 

’ There is no ground whatever for bring- 
ing in the demons here from x. 20 (this in 
opposition to Olshausen and others). The 
second part of the verse, which makes 
no further mention of Aeyouevots Bevis, 
should have sufficed of itself to prevent 
this; still more the correlation in which 
the many gods and lords stand to the els 
®eds and cis Kvpros in ver. 6. 


an 


~ 


gin. 


CHAP. VIII., 6. 1387 
Matt. p. 168) : it agrees better, however, with the ete Kéipioc ’I. X. which 
follows, to understand 6 rarfp as in apposition to Oed¢ and defining it more 
precisely. By 6 xarf#p, and the relative definitions of it which follow, the 
el¢ Oed¢ has its specific character assigned to it, and that in such a way as to 
make the reader feel, from the relation of the One God to the world, and 
from his own relation to Him, how the Christian, despite that plurality of 
gods, comes to rest in the thought of the wnity of God, and how idols are 
with him put out of account altogether. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 
348. —6 xarf#p| in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the viodecia of 
Christians. Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — 2¢ ov ra révra] as to primary ori- 
See on Rom. xi. 36. —kal jueic cic aitév| i.e. and we Christians are 
destined to serve His purposes: He is our End. Tere again, after the «ai, we 
have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle 
from his preference for direct address. Comp. on vii. 18. Bernhardy, p. 
304. It is arbitrary to take eic in such a narrow sense as is given to it by 
Piscator, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, al. : for God’s honour ; but positively incor- 
rect to take it for év, with Beza, Calvin, and others ; or for é¢, with Schulz, 
Heydenreich, and Pott. Billroth interprets it in Hegelian fashion : ‘‘ that 
man should be towards God, should return into Him as his First Cause, not 
remain for himself.” This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine’s ‘‘ Fe- 
cisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te,” Conf. 
i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, a/.), finds the 
Trinity here also (comp. on Rom. xi. 36), which is obviously wrong, were 
it only for this reason, that we have neither one subject alone named in this 
passage (as at least in Rom. Joc. cit.), nor three, but two.’ He holds, with 
Billroth (comp. also Neander), that the cic refers to the agency of the Holy 
Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin. °— dv od ra ravra] does not 
apply to the new moral creation (Grotius, Stolz, Pott), and consequently 
cannot include all that is involved in redemption and atonement (Baur, neut. 
Theol. p. 193), which is clearly against the sense of the preceding ra rdyea ; 
but it means that Jesus Christ, in His premundane existence, as the Son of 
God (not as the Ideal Man or the like) as rpwréroKxog mdone Kticewe (in John’s 
phrase, as Adyoc), was He through whom * God brought about the creation 
of the world. See on Col. i. 15 ff. Comp. Johni. 3. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, 
p. 315 ff.; Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 29 ff.; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. § 85; 
Lechler, p. 51 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 318. Philo calls the Adyo¢ the 
dpyavov, dv ov Kateckevdody (6 Kédcuoc). See de Cherub. 1. p. 162. In Rom. xi. 
36, d¢ ov is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind 


1 Hence we find, in some of the later codd. 
and Fathers, additional clauses respecting 
the Spirit, namely, cai év mvedua aycov, év @ 
TA TaVTA K. NES Ev VTS, ANA: Kal Ev mvedua 
ay. 60 of ravTa. But soearly an expositor 
as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the 
Spirit is not mentioned here. 

2 Jn order to bring out the ‘‘ all’ (Rom. 
xi. 36), Olshausen affirms: ‘*‘ Insomuch as 
the church is destined to receive all men in- 


to it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex re- 
storative influence even upon the «rious 
(Rom. viii. 19 ff.), those who believe are 
equivalent to things asa whole.’’ An in- 
stance—to be taken as a warning—of exc- 
getical subjectivity in the interest of dog- 
matic preconception. 

3 Not é€é ob which holds only of the Fa- 
ther, although eis ov could be said of the 
Son also (comp. Col. i. 16). 


188 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


than here. — xa? jet dv’ aitov] is not to be referred to the physical creation 
(Riickert) ; for the idea thus elicited would not only be tame and obvious 
of itself, but also out of keeping with what has previously been stated of 
God, the second clause in which, x. jueic ei¢ aitév, adds a different, namely, 
an ethical relation. The reference here is to the new creation of believers 
(Eph. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 5 Gal. vi. 15) ; this is effected by God through 
Christ, who, asin the physical creation, is the causa medians. Just as we 
Christians have but one God, the true Creator, whose designs we serve ; so, 
too, we have but one Lord, the true Mediator, to whom all things owe their 
being, and we our Christian existence, that which we are as Christians. 
This ‘fone God and one Lord” shuts out all the heathen gods as such, so 
far as the Christian consciousness is concerned. 

Ver. 7. ‘‘ We know that there is no idol, etc. ; however, this yréoi that we 
speak of (7) is not in all ; but doubtless (the dé as in vii. 37, and very often 
—so ver. 9—after a negative clause) there are many who,” etc. — rH cvvec- 
Sjoee Ewe apte Tov eldGAov] in virtue of their conscience till now regarding the idol, 
i.e. through this, that their moral consciousness is still burdened with the 
conception of an actual existence of the heathen gods as-:such. The oppo- 
site of the ovveidnore Tod eld@Aov 18 : oidauer, Ort ovdév eldwhov év Kéouw, Ver. 4. 
Because those who are weak in the faith have not risen to this conviction, 
but still remain under the belief that the idols really exist, therefore they 
eat the meat offered to idols as meat offered to idols, i.e. their conception in 
eating it is, not that it is the same as other meat, and consequently to be 
partaken of without scruple and without receiving any idolatrous defilement, 
but that it is really meat consecrated to an idol whichis assumed to exist, and 
hence that to eat of it is sinful.’ — ovveidyjorg* | means simply conscience (neither 
judicium, as many maintain, nor obscure conception, as Schulz would have it ; 
Billroth’s rendering is better, though still inexact : ‘‘ conviction that there 
are eidwAa ;” so also Reiche, Maier), and rov-eiddAov is the object of the moral 
consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the 
gen. with ovveid., comp. Heb. x. 2; 1 Pet. 1. 195; so also frequently in 
Greek writers. The context shows what the relation is as regards meaning 
(here it is that which is inherent in the consciousness as its contents). — éw¢ 
aptt| marks off the time more sharply than ‘‘ always as yet” (Hofmann), 
which would be érz ; it means, ‘‘ wp to this very hour” (iv. 18, xv. 6, and in 
all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most 
naturally attach itself to éo@iovo. ; but since the place which on critical 
grounds must be assigned to it is before eidéAov (see the critical remarks), it 
must be joined to rH cuverdjoer. We might have expected ri éwe dpre ovvedfoer 
Tov eld@Aov OF TH ovvedfoet Tov Eld@AoV TH ~we pte 3 even in Greek authors, 
however, one finds adverbial attributives used in this loose adjectival way 
without any connecting article ; and Paul himself in other places employs 


1 [The later critical editors all adopt the (Profangrdacit. pp. 52 ff., 75) Kohler, Schri/t- 


other reading cvvybeia = by familiar inter-  gemdsse Lehre vom Gew., 1864; Delitzsch, 
course with, or as the Revised Version has Jsychol. p. 133 ff.; Lindes, de vi et ratione 
it, ‘‘ being used to.”—T. W. C.] ovvedycews Cx N. T. Lund, 1866; R. Hof- 


2See generally, besides von Zetschwitz mann, Lehre vom Gew., Leipz. 1866. 


— sw 


CHAP, VIE, 8, 189 


this mode of expression (see on xii. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23; Phil. i. 26 ; Gal. i. 
13). —It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to 
supply a second owver Shoes (without the article) after 7% cuverd., and connect 
Ewe apte Tov elddAov with this. — doferj¢ oica| because it is weak ; for were it 
strong, it would no longer have suffered itself to be morally bound by the 
conception of idols, and hence would not have been defiled (made conscious 


of guilt) by eating, because in that case the eating would be é« riotews (Rom. 


xiv. 23). Modivery (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1), of ethical defilement ; also in 
Keclus. xxi. 28 ; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 42 ; Synesius, Hp. 5. Comp. Titus 
1,15: juaiver. Observe here the two sides of the conscience : it was weak 
to begin with, and afterwards it is defiled as well. 


Notz.—The éwe dpti, which points back to their state before conversion, puts 
it beyond question that the weak brethren are not to be conceived of as Jewish- 
Christians, but as Gentiles, whose conscience was still burdened with the belief, 
brought with them from the heathen period of their lives, that the idol was a 
divine reality. They must have supposed the idols to be subordinate divine 
beings (not demons, as Neander thought, which, according to x. 20, would have 
been the correct conception), from whose worship they had been brought to 
that of the one Supreme God; so that they could not look upon the consump- 
tion of sacrificial flesh as a mere harmless eating of meat, but had their con- 
science always hampered with the thought that by so eating they were brought 
into contact with those idol-deities. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrys- 
ostom) : yoav yap woAAo? é& eidwAodatpiacg TH Triotes TpocEAOvTec of Fwc ApTti, TovTéoTeL 
Kat peTa Td TLoTEboaL, TA eldwAdITA eoOlovow dc eidwAdhura. Theodoret says: ovy 
7) Bp@arg poAvvet, GAAa 7 ovveldnore THY TEeheiav ov SeLapmévyn yruoty, ETL Oé TH TAGYH TOV 
el0WAwy Katexouévn. This in opposition to the common view, that the weak 
brethren are to be sought among the Petrine party. Schenkel even goes the 
length of explaining the name of that party from the abstinence of the members 
from sacrificial flesh ; therein they held strictly, he thinks, to the Apostolic 
Council, whose decree had been arrived at specially through the influence 
of Peter (?). The correct view, that the weak brethren were Gentile-Christians, 
is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann’s reading of 
ovvnpeia. 


Ver. 8 f. This is not an objection urged by the Corinthians in defence of 
their eating meat offered to idols, which is then followed, in ver. 9, by the 
apostle’s reply (Calvin, Pareus, Mosheim, Zachariae, Pott, Heydenreich, 
Billroth) ; for here, too, we have no formula to mark that an objection is 
being adduced, and those who ate the sacrificial flesh would in their interest 
have required to write : obte éav py ddyoper, reptocebouev, obte édv ddyouer, 
borepotpefa. No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by dé) 
to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren : ‘‘ Now, food 
1s not the determining element in the Christian’s relation to God; to abstain 
Srom it does no harm, and to partake of it gives no advantage (see the critical 
remarks). Therefore (ver. 9) ye ought not to make yourselves a cause of stumbling 
to the weak through your liberty to eat sacrificial flesh.” If food were not a 
thing indifferent,—if abstinence from it brought loss, and partaking of it 
blessing with God,—then it would be our duty not thus to adapt ourselves 


190 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


to the weak. — ov xapacrioe:] it will not (in any case which may arise ; 
Suture) present us to God ; non exhibebit nos Deo, i.e. it will not affect the posi- 
tion of our moral character in the gudgment of God, either for the worse or for 
the better. We have thus a description of an adiaphoron in its relation to 
God. Comp. Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann. Most interpreters take the 
word in the sense of commendabit, or, keeping by the Rec. rapiornot, commen- 
dat, as if it were cvviorioe: OY ovviornot. This is untenable according to the 
rules of the language ; and it is illogical besides, for beth the cases which 
follow oire . . . ove are included under the collective conception, ob zapaor. 
t. Oe@.’ — borepot. | do we come short, do we lack anything in our relation to 
God. The opposite of this (comp. Phil. iv. 12) is repicc. : we have an over- 
flowing abundance, something more than mere sufficiency in our relation to 
God 3; rovréoriv evdoxipovpuev Tapa TO O&O O¢ ayabdv Tt ToLhoavTec Kal péya, Chrys- 
ostom. — BAérere dé] The dé, now then, introduces what is their positive 
duty, as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case. — rpdcxoupua] 
stumbling, i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp. Rom. xiv. 13. 

Ver. 10. Tic] any such weak brother, namely. —rév éyovra yraow] quippe 
qui cognitionem habes, in significant apposition to oé. It is just this, which 
the weaker believer knows respecting the stronger, that leads him astray. — 
év etdwheiw xataxeiuevov| Their liberal-mindedness went, it seems, so far that 
they even reclined at table in idol-temples with those who held the sacrificial 
feasts there. The absolute prohibition of this abuse of liberty (which follows 
afterwards in x. 14-22) would not have come in suitably here, where the 
connection of itself naturally led the apostle simply to point out in the way of 
warning the bearing of such conduct upon the weak. — Instances of the use 
of eidwAsiov—which does not occur in profane writers—from the LXX. and 
the Apocrypha, may be scen in Schleusner, Thes. II. p. 246. See also 
Eustath. ad Od. vi. p. 263. 17. In the Fragm. Soph. 152 (Dind.), the true 
reading is éddAca. — oixodounfyoerat| is neither a voa media (Clericus, Elsner, 
Wolf, al.), nor does it mean impelletur (Castalio, Kypke, Hermann, Stolz, 
al.) or confirmabitur (Syr., Grotius, Zachariae, Schulz, Billroth), but as 
always in the N. T.: willbe built up, advanced in a Christian frame of mind, 
so as to eat (sic 7d éof.). To be brought to eat sacrificial flesh while one is 
weak (ac0ev. dvtoc, Opposite of yrdow éyerv), is, as Calvin rightly expresses it, 
a ruinosa aedificatio, secing that the foundation which it ought to have, the 
miotic, is wanting. We have here, therefore, an ironically significant anti- 
phrasis ; without the aof. dvtog it might be a case of a real oixodopetcOar ; 
things being as they are, however, it can be so only in appearance, and, in 
reality, it is the very opposite.2 Hgregie aedificabitur! The hypothesis 
(Storr. Opuse. II. p. 275 f. ; Rosenmiiller, Flatt, comp. Neander), that Paul 
borrows the word from the letter of the Corinthians to him (in which they 


1 This holds also against the modification 2 Wetstein compares with this the pas- 
which Valeckenaer, Riickert, and°de Wette sage in Nedarim, f. 40.1: ‘Si dixerint tibi 
have made upon the ordinary view: ‘‘ does juniores aedifica, et seniores demolire, audi 
not bring ws near to God, does not put us seniores et non audi juniores, quia aedifi- 
into a position to appear before Him.”’ catio juniorum est demolitio, et demolitio 
Comp. Theophylact : ov« olxevot Huas To Oew, seniorum est aedificatio.” 


ee 


CHAP. VITI., (e430 191 


had said that by partaking of sacrificial flesh people edify the weak), and 
gives it back to them in an antiphrastic way, cannot be established, and is 
unnecessary. 

Ver 11. ’AréAAvrac (“ terrificum verbum,” Clarius) yép unfolds the mean- 
ing of the antiphrastic element of the preceding oixod., the yap introducing 
the answer (Hartung, I. p. 477 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 240; Baeumlein, Part. 
p- 72), in which the apostle’s irony loses itself in the deep earnestness which 
underlies it : he is in truth utterly ruined, etc. — ardAdvrac is meant here, as 
in Rom. xiv. 15, of destruction xaz’ éoyfv, the eternal axdédreca to Which a 
man becomes liable when he falls from the life of faith into that of sin 
through violation of his conscience. See on Rom. xiv. 15. Billroth, indeed, 
holds the ydp here to be quite inexplicable, unless we take a7624. simply in 
the sense of is led astray (but see the critical remarks) ; while Riickert 
declares the ydp utterly useless. Nevertheless, aréAaura x.7.4. makes it 
clear and unmistakable how the case stands with the preceding oixodouy@., 
so that ydp is logically correct. — év ri of yvéoe] belongs to amor. : by 
means of thy knowledge, so that it through the use thou hast made of it, has 
occasioned this destruction. ’E7i (see the critical remarks) would be : upon 
thy knowledge, so that it was the ground of what took place. — 6 ddeAg. 6 
bv X. ax.] a weighty twofold motive for not bringing about such a result. 
Comp. Rom. xiv. 15. The dv dv X. ar. is frustrated by the aroar.! Comp. 
ver. 12. Bengel says well in reference to dv’ dv : ‘ut doceamur, quid nos 
fratrum causa debeamus.”” Respecting dud, comp. Rom. iv. 25. 

Ver. 12. Oirw] When ye sin against the brethren in this way, as described 
~ invv. 10, 11. —xai] and especially. — rixtovtec| in substance the same thing 
as podbvorrec in ver. 7, only expressed by a different metaphor, which makes 
the cruelty of the procedure more apparent. What befitsa weak conscience 
is forbearance, not that it should morally receive blows, should be smitten 
_ through offence done to it as with a wounding weapon (Hom. J/. xix. 125 ; 
Herod. iii. 64 ; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5 ; Prov. xxvi. 22), so that now, instead of 
being but a weak, it becomes a bad conscience. — airév] put first because 
correlative to the ei¢ Xpioréy which follows ; in the latter is finally concen- 
trated the whole heinousness of the offence. 

Ver. 18. Comp. Rom. xiv. 21. The classic didrep, for that very reason 
(because the offence in question is such a heinous one), meets us with cer- 
tainty in the N. T. only here and x. 14. — Bpéua] any kind of food, indefi- 
nitely. Instead now of saying in the apodosis : ‘‘ then I will never more eat 
of it,” etc., he names the special kind of food (xpéa) presenting itself in appli- 
cation to the subject discussed, by abstaining from which, at any rate, the 
use of sacrificial flesh and the cxavdadov thereby given would be excluded. — 
ov un dayw] ‘‘ Accommodat suae personae, ut facilius persuadeat,” Piscator. 
The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of assurance, ‘‘ then I will 
certainly not eat,” etc. Toto d¢ diddoKadog apiotog TO Ov Eavtov raetew & Héyet, 
Chrysostom. — ic tr. aidva] to all eternity, nevermore ; hyperbolical mode of 
expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp. as regards the idea, Rom. 
xiv. 21. —iva pi) «.7.4.] For this is what I should bring about, if he holds the 

flesh which I eat to be sacrificial flesh (ver. 9). Observe the emphatic repeti- 


192 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tion of the words, and the different order in which cxavdad. and r. adeAd. p. 
are placed.—That the maxim here enunciated cannot be an universal rule in 
adiaphoris, had been pointed out already by Erasmus. Comp. Gal. ii. 5 with 
1 Cor, ix. 19 ff. and Acts xvi. 3. It does not hold, when the truth of the 
gospel comes to be at stake. Comp. Gal. i. 14. -(z) 


Notes. py AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(x) ‘‘Is known of Him.’ Ver. 3. 


The pregnant meaning of this phrase is well given in Cremer’s Lexicon sub 
voce. No lower view will adequately meet the demands of the connection.— 
The ‘‘ knowledge” spoken of in the first verse is well defined by Stanley as not 
secular knowledge as distinguished from divine or theological, but knowledge 
of divine things without love, knowledge by itself as distinguished from knowl- 
edge of divine things with love. The same writer develops the Apostle’s figure 
thus : ‘‘ Knowledge may indeed expand and enlarge the mind, but it is by mere 
inflation, as of a bubble, which bursts and vanishes away. Love alone succeeds 
in building up an Bdifice, tier above tier, solid alike in its ei deier te § and in 
its basis, so as to last forever. 


(x) An idol is nothing. Ver. 4. 


Stanley, in opposition to the opinion stated in the text, says that as the word 
idol can hardly be used in an abstract sense in Greek any more than in English, 
and as in x. 19 it is not somuch the non-existence as the nothingness of the idol 
which is asserted, it is on the whole better to adopt the more common inter- 
pretation, viz., that an idol has no strength and no meaning in any part of the 
universe ; its existence is confined to the mere image in the temple, and has no 
further influence elsewhere. Hodge, on the other hand, insists that in x. 19 
Paul says that the idols are demons, and-says that the meaning here is that 
there are no such beings in the universe as the heathen conceived their gods 
to be. (So Kling, Principal Brown, Canon Evans, and Beet.) On the next verse 
he remarks that there are two things which the Apostle means to deny: 1. The 
existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be: 2. That 
the supernatural beings who do really exist, and who are called gods, are 
really divine. They are mere creatures. 


(z) The rule of expediency. Ver. 18. 


It is impossible to state more strongly than does the Apostle the obligation to 
refrain from indulging in things indifferent when the use of them is an occasion 
of sin to others. Yet it is never to be forgotten that this by its very nature is a 
principle the application of which must be left to every man’s conscience in the 
sight of God. No rule of conduct founded on expediency can be enforced by 
church discipline. It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing 
others to offend ; but he conid not justly have been subjected to censure, had 
he seen fit to eat it. The same principle is illustrated in reference to circnm- 
cision. The Apostle utterly refused to circumcise Titus, and yet he circumcised 


SP eH A Were Be 27%4 
wet a A , oat, 
ae) me 3 J u 
NOTES. ie 1 a ae 193 
S, ee X : ‘ 





) oe hae Otherwise heis judged of another man’s con- 
r v rule of cae is introduced, and the category of adiaphora, 





194 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 1. ok eiul éAedOepoc ; ovK elut az.] So AB, min., and most of the vss., 
with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb. 
Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is 
defended by Pott, Rinck, Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it 
was very natural to transfer ov« eiwi am. to the first place as the more important 
point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (vv. 1-3). 
— Ver. 2. ti¢ éuj¢] Lachm. Rick. Tisch. read pov ric, with B &, 17, 31, 46, Or. 
Rightly ; the Recepta is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in 
view of ver. 3. Had yov crept in from the ro épyov pov in ver. 1, it would have 
been put after atootoane. — Ver. 6. tov] is wanting, it is true,in ABD* FG &, 
17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Rick. ; but the 
omission was very naturally suggested by vv. 4, 5. — Ver. 7. &« Tov xaprov] 
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read tov xaprév, with A B C* D* F G &*, 17, 46, 137, 
Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Recepta is an alteration 
in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in 
meaning. -— Ver. 8. 7 odyi kai x.7.2,] There is decisive testimony in favour of 
} Kai 6 vouoc Tavita ov Aéyer ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch. It was altered because not understood. — Ver, 10. éx’ éAmidu Tov peré- 
xetv] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick, Tisch., with A BC §&*, 10, 17, 71, Syr. 
utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus, Cyr. The Recepta again 
(defended by Reiche) is: ri¢ éAridog avTov petévery ex’ EAridt. Since, however, 
this éx’ éArids is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence 
against it! that it must be rejected at once ; 77¢ éAmidoc avrov peTéyetv, again, 18 
so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could 
hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not 
observed that we have to supply ddodv after diodv, the én’ éArids Tod wetéverv 
remained unintelligible, and rij¢ éAridog avtov was put in as a gloss to obviate 
the difficulty ; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original 
words, in others, got mixed up with them (Elz.).— Ver. 11. 6epicowev] CD EF 
G L, min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, have Oepicwuev. So Lachm. on the margin. 
Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text ; grammarians took offence at 
the subjunctive after ei. — Ver. 13. There is decisive evid@hce for reading 
mapedp. here with Lachm, Riick. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in ver. 
15 od Kévpnuar ovdert t., With Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rick. Tisch. — Ver. 15. 
iva tic kevdon] There is great diversity here. B D* 8*, Sahid. Baschm. have 
avdeic Kevooet (SO Lachm.), A has oddeic¢ uu Kevdcer (So Riick.). F G, 26, give us 
tic kevooet. The Recepta, which is specially defended by Reiche, iva ti¢ xevacn, 
has only a partial support from OC D*** EI K S**, the majority of the min. 
and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these 

# 


1 Reiche would attach this addition as standing first, it would obtrude upon 
(which quite mars the sense in the Recepta) __ the antithesis something quite foreign to it 
to the next verse ; but there, too, especially and unsuitable. 


CHAP. IX. 195 


authorities are in favour of kevdoez, which is adopted by Tisch. But the 
Received reading, as well as the ti¢ cevioe:, seems to be an attempt to amend 
the original—but not understood—text in B (which A only intensifies), so 
that we ought to read 7 70 kavynud pov obdeic kevdcet. See the exeget. remarks 
on the verse. — Ver. 16. xatynua] DEF G &*, It. : yapic. Not strongly enough 
attested ; an old gloss in accordance with Luke vi. 32-34. Instead of ydp after 
ovai, Elz. has dé, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There 
are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., evayyeAiowuat in 
place of the second etayyedAifwuar ; the Recepta is a repetition from the first. — 
Ver. 18. Elz. and Scholz have rov Xpiorod after ehayyés., in opposition to deci- 
sive evidence. — Ver. 20. 1) Ov aibto¢g bird vouov] omitted in Eiz., but given by 
almost all the uncials and many vss, and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton. — Ver. 21. 
The genitives Ocov and Xpiorov (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have deci- 
sive testimony in their favour, as xepddvw rode av. also has (so Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch.) ; the Recepta kepdjow dvouovg was formed upon the model of ver. 20. — 
Ver. 22. The dc before dof. is wanting in A B &*, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr. 
Ambrosiust. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a 
mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses. — The article before 
mavta (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority. — 
Ver. 23. rotro] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss. 
and Fathers, have zavra; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch. Toiro is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely ; for the 
same reason Sahid. Arm. read ravra dé rdvta. —Ver. 27. truridfw] So Elz. 
Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A BC D* &, 
min. Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, iomdalo 
(F G K Lwin. Fathers) and éromélw (D*** E, min. Fathers), must be rejected 
even on the ground of external evidence alone, all the more that the vss. 
castigo (Vulg.), subjicio, macero, affligo, domo, do not show clearly whitch reading 
they follow. Notwithstanding, drorutw has been defended of late, especially 
by Matth. (‘‘mcdZew loco méferv aliquos male habuit’’), Reiche, Hofm., and 
adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant 
and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with mio or TréGw, but took 
offence at itw (with Q). 


ConTENTS.—That principle of loving self-denial which Paul had just laid 
down for himself in respect of the single point in question (vill. 13), he now 
confirms by referring to his general demeanour, of which that one resolve was 
merely a particular expression, and shows, in a frank, deeply impressive, and 


_ striking elucidation, how he, notwithstanding that he was free and an apos- 


tle (vv. 1-3), yet refrained from pressing his well-grounded right to have 
himself (and a consort as well) supported by the churches (vv. 4-18), and 
adapted himself to the needs of all men (vv. 19-23). His readers, therefore, 
should be like champions at the games in striving for the everlasting crown, 
preparing themselves to this end through the exercise of self-control, even 
as he too sought, by self-renunciation, to become worthy of the prize (vv. 
24-27). Not until chap. x. does he come back from this digression to the 


special topic (of the sacrificial flesh) with which it stands connected. It is 


not of the nature of an apology as regards its whole plan and design, but 
only incidentally so in some isolated references (vv. 2, 3, 5, 12). 


196 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Ver. 1. The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly 
exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part 
as he had announced in viii. 13 ; the third question corroborates the full 
purport of the second ; and the fourth represents him as proving the point 
by a personal appeal to his readers, whom Paul kai avrtoie ei¢ waprupiay Kare, 
Theodoret. — éreibepoc] free, dependent upon no man. Comp. ver. 19. — 
. éopaxa| Observe the solemnity of the phrase ; his readers knew 
what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having 
seen Christ in His earthly life, which would have had nothing to do with his 
-apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in 
the case of Paul at all,—certainly not from 2 Cor. v. 16,—but to the sight 
of the glorified Jesus, which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him 
to. be an apostle (Acts ix. 17, xxii. 14 f., xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. xv. 8), and was 
often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Acts xviil. 9, xxii. 
17 f. ; 2 Cor. xii. 1).’ It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appear- 
ances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too, 
were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic rela- 
tion to Christ ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in 
the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers 
from Paul’s own lips. — év Kvpiw] does not belong to épyov ; just as little 
does it to iweic (Pott), or to tueic éore alone (Riickert), but is meant to bring 
out the Christian character of the whole rd épyov pm. bpueic gore. For out of 
Christ, «7 whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, out- 
side of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed 
their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering : 
by the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of 
those who adopt it understand Kéipioc of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Riick- 
ert, al., following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp. iv. 15. 

Vv. 2, 3. Not a parenthesis, but a statement interposed in his own de- 
fence, occasioned by ov 76 égpyov «.t.4., and flowing from a heart deeply 
moved. — dAdo] i.e. in relation to others, who, not belonging to your com- 
munity,do not own my apostleship as valid for them.” ‘‘ We have no Apostle 


*Inoovv. . 


1 Baur takes advantage of this stress laid terpretations which make this a visionary 


~on the fact of having seen Christ, to sup- 
port his hypothesis as to the close connec- 
tion of the Petrine and the Christ-party. 
See against this Rabiger, p. 128 f. Accord- 
ing to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions 
of the Christ-party (the existence of which 
he has first of all to assume). The true 
view is, that Paul is here indicating how, 
in respect of this point also, he stands in no 
whit behind the original apostles. “E7edy 
peTa THY avadniLy TOV TwTHPOS EKAYOy, Elxov 5é 
Sdgav ol dmdgToAo Tapa Tact MEeyloTHY ws THS 
Tov Kupiov Oeas névwmeévor, Kal todto mpoared- 
-ecxev, Theodoret. And itis no lower thing 
to have seen Christ in His glory than to 
have seen Him in His humiliation upon the 
earth. Comp. Calvin. As against the in- 


beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, @.), see 
Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220f. 
How very distinctly Paul himself describes, 
especially in Acts xxii. 14, a bodily appear- 
ance! See also Gal. i. 1, comp. with ver. 15. 
Nothing contrary to this can be proved 
from the words éwpakéevar and odOjvar (xv. 
8), since these do not determine the kind of 
seeing and appearing. Comp. ¢.g. the use 
of the latter term in Acts vii. 26 of a bodily 
appearing. 

2 was unquestionably by stranger Pe- 
trine Christians that the anti-Pauline influ- 
ence had been exerted upon the Corinthian 
church. So much is clear, but nothing 
more. Riabiger thinks that they were the 
instigators of the Petrine party in Corinth, 


CHAP. IX., 4. 19E 


Paul,” say they ! Comp. as to the relation of the dative, viii. 6. — ov« ei] 
See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601]. —aaaAdye] still at least. See Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 826. The ye intensifies the aaa of the apodosis (see on iv. 15, 
vill. 6) ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 24 f. It cannot be said with any critical 
certainty that aAAdye ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or 
more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, dc. p. 15, and 
Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 86 E ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 331 B.—Taking the 
reading 7 ydp odpay. ov r. aroor. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is : 
my seal of apostleship, with the emphasis on o¢pay. As to the word itself, 
see Rom. iv. 11. Theodoret well remarks: arddecEw yap rév amootodiKav 
Katoplwpatov tiv byuerépav Exo peTaBoAgv. —év Kvpiw] as in ver. 1; it belongs 
to the whole preceding clause : 7 odpayic r. gu. am. tu. tore. For out of 
Christ the Corinthians were no seal of Paul’s apostleship. See on ver. 1. 
They were this seal to him, inasmuch as they had become Christians through 
his agency (in general, not through his miracles in particular, as Flatt holds 
with older expositors). — 7) éu2) amoAoy. «.7.4.] statement of what the foregoing 
comes to, added without any connective particle, and so all the more em- 
phatic; not merely a repetition of the last clause in other words (Hofmann), 
which would be an admissible interpretation only if airy éore were absent, 
or if éoré occurred again. — roi¢ éué avaxp.| to those who institute an inquiry 
regarding me (comp. Acts xix. 33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 19), who question my apostle- 
ship. Both aoa. and avaxp. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions. 
Comp. as to the latter, Luke xxiii. 14; Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, xxviii. 
18. — airy] this, namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine dzooroAy. It 
does not refer to what follows (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Calovius), 
for ver. 4 continues the series of questions begun in ver. 1, and what follows 
does not contain any further defence of his apostleship (which, moreover, 
would be quite unsuitable here). (A’)—Observe, lastly, the emphasis of éup 
and éué, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position. 

Ver. 4f. Returning from the digression in vv. 2, 3, Paul begins a new 
series of questions, with the view of now making good the prerogative arising 
out of his apostleship, which in point of fact he declined to exercise. — 7 oi 
Eyouev| i.e. we surely are not destitute of the right to lead, etc. 2? Comp. Rom. 
x. 18; 1 Cor..xi. 22. The plural cannot be restricted in its reference to 
Paul alone, secing that it has just been preceded, and is again followed in 
ver. 6, by the singular, but must imply that the apostle is thinking both of 

himself and of whosoever else acts in like manner. More particularly, ver. 6 
shows that he has here in his eye, not his companions in labour generally 
(Hofmann), but Barnabas in particular besides himself (for see the pdvoc in 
ver. 6), and him only. It may be added, that Calovius is right in saying, 
against the abuse of this passage in the interests of monasticism, that Paul is 
not speaking here of what ‘‘ semper et ubique vitari oporteat sed de eo tantum 


Schenkel makes them of the Christ-party. were notanti-Pauline, and the express con- 
Hofmann explains the expression from the trast here is with the vets, among whom 
difference between the amooroAy tis wept- must beincluded the Jewish-Christians who 
towns and that ris axpoBvorias. But thatis | were in Corinth. 

going too far ; forall circumcised Christians 


198 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


quod in casu noxii scandali infirmorum fratrum vitandum est.” — gayeiv 
x. wieiv| t.€. at the cost of the churches. 'To understand it of non-observance of 
the Jewish laws about food (Hunnius, Heydenreich, Billroth, comp. Olshau- 
sen), or of sacrificial flesh and wine (Schrader), is contrary to the context. See 
ver. 6 ff. The right of eating and drinking, in the sense in which the reader 
would naturally understand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luke x. 7), re- 
quired nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Matt. xi. 19 (Hof- 
mann) has no bearing on the clause before us, the point of view there being 
that of asceticism.—The injinitives are exegetical, and need no rov (Matt. ix. 
6 ; Mark ii. 10, al.). — adeAdqv yur. repidy.]| to lead about (along with me on 
my Official journeys) a sister (a female believer) as a wife. The view taken 
by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, tivé¢ in 
Theodoret, Theophylact ; comp. generally, Suicer, Thes. I. p. 810), that a 
serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius & Lapide, and Estius,) 
is against the plain meaning of the words, without shadow of historical 
support in the life of the apostle, supposes a somewhat unseemly relation, 
and is contrary to the example of Peter, Matt. viii. 14.7 It has, however, 
been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly 
insufficient grounds. On epidyev, comp. Xen. Cyr. li. 2. 283; it occurs 
oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2; Polyb. xx. 5. 8. — d¢ xai oi 
hour. av.| It does not follow from this that all the other apostles were mar- 
ried, but the majority of them must have been so, otherwise the phrase, 
which must be meant to hold at least a potiort, would be unsuitable. (B*) — 
rat ol ddeAdol Tov Kupiov] Now, the brethren of the Lord are in Acts i. 14 ex- 
pressly distinguished from the Twelve; further, in Gal. i, 19, James, the 
Lord’s brother, is equally distinguished from those who were apostles in 
the narrower and original sense (such as Peter) ; and further still, we have 
no trace in any of the lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 2 f. ; Mark iii. 16 f. ; 
Luke vi. 14 f.) that there were ‘‘ brethren of the Lord” among the Twelve, 
—a supposition which would also be decidedly at variance with John vii. 
3; Mark iii. 21. The adeAdot rod Kvupiov, therefore, should not be put ona 
level with Cephas (Hofmann), and sought within the number of the Twelve, 
but are the actual brothers of Jesus, not His half-brothers merely (sons of 
Joseph by a former marriage), but His wterine brothers, later-born sons of 
Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25 ; Lukeii. 7 ; Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55), who had 
become believers and entered upon apostolic work after the resurrection of 
Jesus (xv. 7; Acts i. 14), and among whom James, in particular, as presi- 
dent of the church in Jerusalem (Acts xv. 13, xxi. 18), had obtained a high 
apostolic position (Gal. ii. 9). See on Acts xii. 17 ; Gal. i. 19. This view? 
runs counter to what was formerly the common view, namely, that of Je- 
rome, which still prevails with Roman Catholics, and issupported by Hengs- 
tenberg and others, that the phrase denotesthe sons of Ohrist’s mother’s sis- 


1 Valla perceived rightly ‘‘fuisse aposto- 2 Which is held also by de Wette, Billroth, 
los suas wxores comitatas,” but thinks that  Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and Ewald, 
they were called sisters, “‘quod tanquam among the more recent expositors of the 
non uxores jam erant.”” An “elegans argu- passage before us. 
tia’ (Calvin) ! 


CHAP. Ix%:,: 6: 199 


ter, so that James, the Lord’s brother, would be identical with the son of 
Alphaeus (but see on John xix. 25), and would bear the name of ‘‘ brother 
of the Lord” (M8 in the wider sense) as a title of honour from his near rela- 
tionship to Jesus. Comp. on Matt. xii. 46. In like manner Lange, in his 
apost. Zeitalter, p. 189, understands the Alphaeidae to be meant ; they were, 
he holds, the adopted brothers of Jesus, Joseph having adopted as his own 
the children of Alphaeus, who was his brother, after the latter’s death. All 
this is nothing but arbitrary imagination, resting simply upon the false as- 
sumption that Mary brought forth Jesus, not as her first-born (Matt. 1) 25 ; 
Luke ii. 7), but as her on/y child. Lange is wrong here in making the «ai 
a proof that the brethren of the Lord were among the Twelve, and are but 
singled out from their number in this verse for special mention. What Paul 
says is rather : ‘‘as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord ;” 
and then, having set before us this august circle formed by the Twelve and 
those brethren of the Lord closely associated with them since the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus (Acts i. 14), in which, too, he himself, as an apostle, had an 
equal place, he singles out in conclusion the most illustrious of them all, 
one who was looked upon as the head of the whole circle (Gal. i. 18), by 
adding : ‘‘and, i.e. and, to mention himin particular by name, Cephas ;” so 
that it is only the last «a/, and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too, 
maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, ad Mare. 
p- 11) ; comp. Mark xvi. 7. — The design of the whole question, ju) ovk éy. 
éfouc. adeAd. y. r., has no bearing upon scruples (of the Christ-party) as to 
marriage being allowed (Olshausen), but is closely connected with the pur- 
port of the first question, as is plain from zepidyerv : ‘‘ Am I denied, then, 
the right to live at the cost of the churches, and to have, like the other 
apostles, etc., a consort journeying along with me from place to place ?” in 
which latter case a similar support from the churches is, from the nature of 
the circumstances, and from the scope of the context (vv. 4, 6), manifestly 
assumed as a matter of course.—Peter’s wife is called by tradition some- 
times Concordia, sometimes Perpetua. See Grabe, Spicil. Patr. I. p. 330. 
Ver. 6. "H] 07, i.e. unless it were true that, etc. In that case, indeed, the 
éfovoia, Of which I spoke in vv. 4,5, must of course be wanting! We have 
therefore no third z£€ovcia introduced here (Pott, Riickert), but 7 conveys an 
argument, as it usually does. — BapvaBac] see on Acts iv. 36. He was for- 
merly (see on Acts xv. 38) Paul’s companion in his missionary labours, 
and as such held a high apostolic position (Gal. ii. 9). —rov pA épydf.] Have 
we not the right to cease from working? Paul supported himself by tent- 
making (Acts xviii. 3) ; in what way Barnabas did so, is unknown. Both 
of them, very probably, after mutual consultation, had laid it down as a 
principle to maintain themselves by their own independent labour, and 
acted upon this rule even when working separately, whereas the rest of the 
apostolic teachers (see wévoc) claimed support from the resources of the 
churches. ’Epydafec#a isthe word constantly used used for working, 2 Thess. 
iii. 8; Acts xviii. 3; Homer, J7. xviii. 469, Od. xiv. 272 ; Xen. Cyr. i. 6, 
11, al. The rendering : hoc operandi (Vulgate and Latin Fathers), arises 
from a different reading (without the py). 


200 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 7. Proof of this apostolic right rot uy épydtecbat from three analogies 
in common life, by applying which to the preachers of the gospel it is made 
manifest that these have the right to live from the gospel. ‘* Pulchre con- 
' fertur minister evangelii cum milite, vinitore, pastore,” Bengel. Comp. 2 
Cor. x. 3 ff.; Matt. xx. 13 John x. 12; Acts xx. 28; Eph. iv. 5. — idiouc 
op.] t.€. so that he pays his own wages (Luke iii. 14 ; Rom. vi. 23).—The dif- 
ference of construction in the two clauses with éo@iec (rdv kapréyv, see the 
critical remarks, and then éx), is to be regarded as simply an accidental 
change in the form of conception, without diversity in the substance of the 
thought. With é« (comp. Ecclus. xi. 17; Tob. i. 10, al.) the expression is 
partitive ; in using the accusative Paul has the fruit (the grapes) in a purely 
objective way before his mind. See generally, Kiihner, II. p. 181. The 
wages of shepherds in the East consists to this day in a share of the milk. 
See Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97. 

Ver. 8. Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above é£oveia. — It 
is not supposed surely that I speak this (namely, what I say of that apostolic 
prerogative in applying to it the rule of these ordinary:analogies) after the 
manner of aman (according to mere human judgment, as a purely human - 
rule, and not a divinely given one) ? or the law too, does it not say this? Is 
it silent concerning this principle ? Does it contain no statement of it ? — 
cata av0p.| The opposite of this is xara tov véuoy tov Ocov. Comp. on Rom. 
ili. 5 ; Gal. ii. 15. Theodoret gives the idea correctly : e dé tui avOparwoc 
eivat TavTa SoKei Aoyiopuoc, akovéTo Tov vduov dSiapphdnv Stayopebovtoc. — 7] aS In 
ver. 6. ‘‘I should not speak this after man’s way of thinking, if it were the 
case that the law contained nothing of it.” This is the affirmative sense of 
the interrogative phrase. — kai] too ; the law is conceived of as the higher 
authority coming in over and above the individual 2aAié. — ov] negatives 
the Aéyec ; see the critical remarks. Comp. ver. 7.— As to the difference 
to be noticed between Aado and Aéyw, See on Rom. iil. 19 ; John viii. 43. 

Ver. 9. Tép]| introduces the answer which is to prove that the raira ob Aéyer 
does not hold good. —r@ Mois. véum] carries a certain solemnity, as coming 
after 6 véuoc in ver. 8. The quotation is from Deut. xxv. 4, given exactly 
according to the LXX., where it is forbidden to keep the ox that drew the 
thrashing machine from eating by a muzzle (¢iuéc, xyudc), Which used to be 
done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25; Cato, de re rust. 54). See 
Michaelis, Mos. R. II. § 180. The motive of the prohibition, in accord- 
ance with that spirit of tenderness towards the lower creation which breathes 
throughout the whole law (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 222), was humanity to 
the helpful animals. See Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21 ; Philo, de Carit. p. 711 
F. The same citation is made in 1 Tim. v. 18. Comp. also Constitt. ap. il. 
25. 3. — giudcerc |— xnudoecc, Which B* D* FG, Tisch. actually read, and 
which we should accept as genuine, since the former might easily creep 
into the text from the LXX. Regarding xnywotv, to muzzle, comp. Xen. de re 
eq. Vv. 33; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative 
(thou wilt—that I expect of thee—not muzzle an ow in the thrashing-floor), see 
on Matt. i. 21. — Beginning with y7 rév Bodv, there follows now the inter- 
pretation of this law, given in the form of a twofold question which runs on 


CHAP; ITx., 10; 201 


to Aéyer, first of all, negatively : God does not surely concern Himself about 
oxen? Tomodify this negation by an ‘‘ only” (so Erasmus and many others, 
among whom is Riickert : ‘‘for nothing further than”) is unwarrantable, 
although even Tholuck’s view in its latest form still amounts to this (das 
A. T. im N. T., ed. 6, p. 40). What Paul means is, that this class of creat- 
ures, the oxen, are not the objects of the divine solicitude in that provision 
of the law ; what expresses the care to be taken for the oxen, is said not for 
their sakes, but dv judc. Ov yap irép TOV aAdywv 6 vduoc, GAN ixép TOV vodv K. 
Abyov éxyévtwv, Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle sets 
aside* the actual historical sense of that prohibition (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 
21) in behalf of an allegorical sense,? which, from the standpoint of a purely 
historic interpretation, is nothing but an application made ‘‘a minori «ad 
majus” (comp. Bava Mezia, f. 88). But this need not surprise vfs, consid- 
ering the freedom used in the typico-allegorical method of interpreting 
Scripture, which regarded such an application as the reference of the utter- 
ance in question designed by God, and which from this standpoint did not 
take the historical sense into account along with the other at all. The in- 
terpreter, accordingly, who proceeds upon this method with regard to any 
particular passage does not callin question its historical meaning as such, 
considered in itself, but only (as was self-evident to his readers) as regards 
the higher typical destination of the words, inasmuch as he goes to work not 
as a historical, but as a typico-allegorical expositor. It is in the typical 
destination of the law in general (Col. ii. 17), whereby it pointed men above 
and beyond itself, that such a mode of procedure finds its justification, and 
on this ground it has both its freedom, according as each special case may 
require, and at the same time its ethical limit, in the necessity of being in 
harmony with what befitted God. (c’) 

Ver. 10. Or—since that cannot be supposed—is this the true state of the 
case, that He saith it altogether for our sakes ?— mavrwc| in the sense of in any 
case, wholly, absolutely, as in v. 10, ix. 22 ; see the remarks there. Comp. 
Acts xvili. 21, xxi. 22, xxvill. 4, also Rom. iii. 9. The rendering : of course, 
certainly, is equally admissible as in Luke iv. 23, but would suit an affirma- 
tive statement better. Theophylact says well (following Chrysostom) : d¢ 
Eri duodoyouuévov réverkev, iva py ovyyophon pnd otiovv avretreiv TH axpoath. — 
dv juac| cannot mean men in general (so most expositors, Hofmann, too, con- 
curring), but must refer to the Christian teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Estius, Riickert, Neander, a/.); this necessarily follows both from the whole 
connection of the argument and from the jueic in ver. 11, since it isan entire- 
ly arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a different subject from 
our 7uac. — Aéyer] sc. 6 Ocd¢ supplied from the foregoing clause, not 7 ypadA 
(Olshausen). — ydp] as in ver. 9. — éypd¢7| namely, the utterance of the law 
cited in ver. 9.—ér:] cannot have an argumentative force (Luther, Beza, 





1 Not simply generalizes (Kling in the Stud. goes astray with a naive simplicity of its 
u. Krit. 1839, p. 884 f.; comp. Neander), nor own: ‘God cares for all things; but He 
* subordinates the one to the other’’ (Osiander), does not care that anything should be writ- 
nor the like, which run counter to the plain ten for oxen, seeing that they cannot read.” 
meaning of the words. Luther’s gloss, too, 2 Comp. also Weiss, bib. Theol. p. 296. 


202 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Calvin, and others, among whom is Neander); nor is it the simple that of 
quotation (Riickert, who indeed looks upon what follows as cited from some 
apocryphal book, in which Ewald concurs with him), so that éypdéy would 
refer to the next clause,—but it is explicative merely (Castalio, Pott, de 
Wette, Osiander, a/., comp. also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegor- 
ical contents of these words of the law in so far as they were written dv jac, 
that is, for the Christian teachers: namely, that the plougher is bound to plough 
in hope, and the thrasher (is bound to thrash) in hope of having his share. The 
adoév and the aporpiéy is thus no other than the gospel teacher, as necessa- 
rily follows from 6’ jua¢c ; the passage of the law now under consideration 
gives occasion to his being jiguratively designated (see as early expositors 
as Chrysostom and Theophylact) in accordance with the idea of the yeépyov 
Ocov (ili. 9), without, however, the two words being intended to signify dif- 
ferent departments of teaching,—a notion which receives no countenance 
from the context. It is teaching in general that is here represented by two 
analogous figures. Figure apart therefore, the meaning is: that the teacher, 
namely, is bound? to exercise his office of teaching, in hope to have profit there- 
Jrom. Ovdév obv étepov 76 oréja akhuwtov dv Tov Caov TobTov Boa } bTt Tod¢g Jidac- 
KaAove Tove movourtac dei kal auorBAc axoAaberv, Chrysostom. It is a mistake to 
apply the words, as is commonly done, to the literal plougher and thrasher. 
Such a maxim of ordinary life would, it is plain, be wholly foreign to the 
typico-allegorical character of the argument, and generally to the nature of 
the mystical interpretation of Scripture, which Paul follows here ; the re- 
sult would be something unsuitably trivial. Nor is it simply an application 
of the moral idea of the precept to the spiritual work that the apostle would 
have his readers make ; there is not the slightest trace of this in his words, 
but the material work serves directly as the fod to the spiritual. 'Theophy- 
lact puts it rightly : 6 duddoKadoc dgeiAee aporprav x. KoTiay ér’ &Arids aporBHe K. 
avriyuodiac. — éx’ éAwidt] has the chief emphasis, and belongs to d¢eiAer, being 
its conditioning basis (as in Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21 ; Titusi. 2). What hope 
the plougher is to cherish, is self-evident, namely, to enjoy with others the 
fruits of his ploughing ; the reference of the figure is obvious from the con- 
text. — tov peréyew] to wit, of the grain thrashed. As to the genitive, see 
Rom. v. 2, al. 

Ver. 11. Application of ver. 10, and that in such a way as to make the 
readers feel 67 peifova AauBdvovow h didéacrv, Chrysostom ; an argument @ 
majori ad minus. —%neic¢] does not include Barnabas, who cannot be proved 
ever to have joined company again with Paul after the separation recorded 
in Acts xv. 39, and who certainly had no share in founding the church at 
Corinth. The apostle means himself along with his companions of that 
period, when by casting forth the seed of the gospel he founded the church 
to which his readers belonged (éorefpayev), Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 19. — 
jueic tuiv) An emphatic juxtaposition, the emphasis of which is further 
heightened by the juei¢ buev which follows, — ra mvevuaruxa] spiritual things, 


1’Odeirec debet (Vulgate). Hofmann goes’ the sense of being entitled, as if he read 
against linguistic usage in turningitinto  dixards éor, or something to that effect. 


=- 


GER ATEN M2: 203 


Christian knowledge, faith, love, ete., inasmuch as these are the blessings 
which, proceeding from the Holy Spirit (Gal. v. 22), become the portion of 
believers through the sower’s work of preaching the gospel (Matt. xiii. 3 ff.). 
Contrasted with these are ra capxixd, the things which have nothing to do 
with the Holy Spirit, but belong to the lower sphere of man’s life, to his 
sensuous, corporeal nature, such as food, clothing, money, etc. Comp. as 
regards the antithesis, Rom. xv. 27: —péya] res magni momenti, Xen. Cyrop. 
vil. 5. 52, Anad. vii. 7. 27. It means here, from the connection : some- 
thing disproportionate. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15. — Bepicwuev] see the critical 


_ remarks. The subjunctive after ei ‘‘respectum comprehendit experientiae” 


(Hermann, de partic. av, p. 97) ; see regarding this idiom on Luke ix. 18, 
and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 831; it occurs in Homer and the lyric poets, 
and, although no certain instance of it can be given from the Attic prose 
writers, is frequent again in later Greek. 

Ver. 12. Confirmation from the example of others. — d20:] other teachers 
generally, who came into the church after the apostle and his associates 
(comp. iii. 10), and who were still there. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pott, 
and others understand them to be false teachers, so as to obviate any 
appearance of collision between Paul and the apostles. But there was, 
in fact, no other apostle whatever among the rest of the Corinthian 
teachers. — ric iuav éfove.] the authority over you,’ t.e. according to the 
context : the right (p’) to claim their support from you. ‘Yyév is thus 
the genitivus objectt (as in ver. 6, comp. John xvii. 2; Matt. x. 1, al.), 
not subjecti, as if it meant : ‘‘ leave, which you give” (Schrader), which does 
not correspond with the conception that Paul had of the case in vv. 4-11. 
To understand the word in the sense of means (Schulz, with Castalio, Sal- 
meron, Zeltner, Ewald), ¢.e. resources, which are at your command, may be 
justified by classical usage (Plato, Legg. viil.-p. 828 D ; Thuc. 1. 38. 3, vi. 
31. 4), but not by that of the N. T., and is excluded here by the scope of 
what immediately follows. Chrysostom, in accordance with his assumption 
that false teachers are meant, makes the reference to be to their tyrannical 
power over the Corinthians. Conjectures (such as that of Olearius : jyér, 
which is actually the reading of 2. 52, and to which Riickert and Neander 
too are inclined ; or that of Cappellus and Locke : otciac) are quite super- 
fluous. — The second 4AAa is opposed to the otx éypyc. Comp. Hom. 7. i. 
26 f. ; Plato, Sympos. p. 211 E, and often elsewhere.—wparAov] potius, we 
the founders of your church. — rdvra oréyopuer| we endure all things (see Wet- 
stein and Kypke, II. p. 213), should be left indefinite : labours, privations 
and the like, arising from our not using the right in question. Comp. xiii. 
7. —iva py éyxor. x.7.A.] For how easily, supposing the apostle’s labours 
had been less independent, or that some suspicion of self-interest, ambition, 
or greed of gain had rested upon him and his companions, might hindrances 
have been put in the way of the gospel as regards its reception, effect, and 
diffusion! And how powerfully must that sacred cause have been com- 


1 Observe the emphasis conveyed by put- under obligation to me first of all, and not 
ting the vuov first : over you, who aresurely to them. 


204 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
mended and furthered by such an example of noble self-denial ! 
ing éyxor#, comp. Dion. Hal. de comp. verb. p. 157, 15. 

Vv. 18, 14. An additional proof of the above right on the part of the 
teachers, drawn now from the sphere of the Israelitish theocracy, namely, 
from the example of the priests and the corresponding command of Christ 
Himself. Then, in ver. 15, éyo dé . . . robtwv repeats the contrast to this. 
—The jirst of the two parallel halves of ver. 13,’ which together describe 
the leparetecy (Luke 1. 7), characterizes the priests generally : oi ra lepa épyat., 
who do the holy things t.e., whose work is to perform divine service ; the 
second clause again is more specific: ‘‘ who are constantly busied at the altar 
of sacrifice” (xpocedp. and rapedp., of an official, and especially of a priestly, 
assidere, Diod. Sic. i. 40; Josephus, cont. Ap. i. 7; Lucian, Asin. 5 ; 
Kypke, II. p. 218). As regards 7a iepd, 7e8 sacrae, 7.e. what belongs to the 
divine cultus, comp. 8 Macc. iii. 21 (according to the true reading) ; 
Demosth. 1300. 6 ; and often elsewhere in the classics. They eat from the 
sanctuary, inasmuch as they have their support from what is brought into 
the temple (sacrifices, shewbread, first-fruits, etc.) ; they have their share 
with the altar of sacrifice, inasmuch as they take to themselves their part of 
the offerings which belong to the altar. See Num. xviii. 8 ff. Beza puts 
it well : ‘‘altaris esse socios in dividenda victima.” It is incorrect to ex- 
plain the first clause as referring to the Levites and the second to the priests 
(so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vitringa, Wolf), for the Levites were not ra 
iepa épyalouevo, but only lepddovaoe (8 Esdr. 1. 8), and therefore, in respect of 
their occupations, are no fitting analogues to the preachers of the gospel ; 
see rather Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17. On this ground we must refuse even to 
include the Levites here (against de Wette, Osiander, Maier, a/.). Rickert 
understands both clauses to refer to the Jewish and heathen cultus and its 
ministers. But in the mind of the apostle, looking at things from the theo- 
cratic point of view of his nation, the iepév and the 8voaor. are simply xa’ 
éfoy4v, those of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) ; and how could he otherwise have said 
oitw kai «.7.4., ver. 14, seeing that the heathen priestly institute was by no 
means of divine appointment ? For these reasons we cannot even say, with 
Ewald, that the words refer primarily indeed to Num. xviil., but are 
couched in such a general form as to apply also to the priests in the heathen 
temples. The mention of 16 Yvoacrnp. is especially opposed to this inter- 
pretation, since for Paul there can be but the one altar ; comp. x. 18. — 
obtw Kat 6 Kipwoc x.7.4.] 80, 7.e. in accordance with the relation of things 
stated in ver. 13, hath the Lord also, ete. ‘O Kipro¢c is Christ ; the allusion 
is to such sayings of His as Matt. x. 10, Luke x. 8, here referred to as 
handed down by living tradition. By the «ai, again, the command of 
Christ is linked to the foregoing relations under the O. T. economy, with 


Respect- 


1The paraphrastic description of the the purposes of the argument. The holy 


priests from their employments serves to 
make the representation uniform with that 
in ver. 14. The doudle designation, however, 
brings out the analogy with the Christian 
teachersinamore clear and telling way for 


thing at which they labour is the gospel 
(Rom. xv. 16), and the offering which they 
present is the faith of their converts (Phil. 
ii. 17), and, consequently, those converts 
themselves (Rom. /.c.). 


OHAP, IX., 15. 205 


which it corresponds (comp. Chrysostom). The order of the words is 
enough of itself to show that the reference is not to God, for in that case 
we must have had : ottw kal toi¢ TO evayy. Katayy. 6 Kbpiog deéras e. — For ex- 
amples of the idiom (jv éx, see Kypke. 

Ver. 15. ’Eyo dé] Paul now reverts to the individual way of expressing 
himself (ver. 3), effecting thereby a lively climax in the representation. 
From this point onward to the end of the chapter we have a growing torrent 
of animated appeal ; and in what the apostle now says regarding his mode 
of acting, his desire is that he alone should stand prominent, without con- 
cerning himself about others, and how they might act and appear in these 
respects. —ovdevi tobtrwr] none of these things ; Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Kstius, Riickert, a/., make this refer to the grounds of the é£ovcia in question 
which have been hitherto adduced. But there is no reason why we should 
not refer it simply to the immediately preceding statement as to the ordi- 
nance of Christ regarding the é« tov evayyediov Cav. Of what belongs to that 
ordinance (food, drink, money, clothing, etc., see Acts xx. 33)—of none of 
these things (rojrwv) had Paul availed inset How common it is for 
Greek writers also to use ravra of a single thing, when considered in its dif- 
ferent component elements, may be seenin Kithner, § 423, note ; Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Apol. Soc. p.19 D. Hofmann holds that ti ‘¢ facts prem the history 
of redemption,” cited in vv. 13, 14, are meant. But oidevi implies that what 
is referred to is a multitude of things, which is summed up in roirwv. — 
Observe the use of the perfect xéypnu. to describe a continuous course of 
action. It is different with éypyodu. in ver. 12.—A. full stop should be put 
after totrwv ; for with ov« éypaya dé taira (all from ver. 4 to ver. 15) there 
begins a new section in the apostle’s address. — iva oirw x.t.4.] in order that 
(for the future) the like (according to what I have written, namely, that the 
preachers of the gospel should be supported by the churches) should be done 
in my case (comp. Luke xxiii. 31 ; Matt. xvii. 12). — paddov] potius, namely, 
than let myself be supported (not magis, Vulgate). —% 7d xabynua pov obdeic 
kevooer| (see the critical remarks) expresses what is to take place, if the 
axovaveiv does not ensue. That is tosay, the 7 cannot here be the than of 
comparison,’ as it would be were we to adopt the Recepta, which in fact has 
just arisen from men failing rightly to understand this 7. It means ‘‘ aut,” 
or otherwise (comp. vil. 11 ; Acts xxiv. 20), equivalent to «i dé 44, and so 
specifying ‘‘ what will take place, if the thing before named does not happen” 
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126), so that it is equivalent in sense to aloquin. 
See Ast, Lev. Plat. Il. p. 12 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4.16; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. I. p. 750 f.; Baeumlein, /.c. What Paul says is: ‘‘ Rather is it 


although approved by Winer, p. 532 [E. T. 
715|—as too bold, being without analogy in 
the N. T., in which, as with classical writers, 


1 My own former view (ed. 2) was to this 
effect, that instead of saying: ‘“‘ Better for 
me to die than to take recompense,’ Paul 


made an aposiopesis at 7, breaking off there 
to exclaim with triumphant certainty: My 
Kavxynua no man will make void! According 
to this, we should have to supply a dash 
after 7, and take what follows indepen- 
dently. Inow regard this interpretation— 


the suppression of the apodosis occurs only 
after conditional clauses (comp. Rom. ix. 
22 f.). Maier has followed this view; as 
does Neander, on the supposition that Lach- 
mann’s reading were to be adopted. 


206 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


good for me to die, i.e. rather is death beneficial for me, or otherwise, if this 
anoVaveiv is not to ensue and I therefore am to remain alive, no one is to make 
my glory void. Comp. as to this asseveration, 2 Cor. xi. 10. —70 kabynud ov 
«.7.A.] 7.e. No man will ever bring me to give up my principle of preaching 
without receiving anything in return, so as to produce the result that I can 
no longer have ground for glorying (xatyyua here too means materies glori- 
andi, asin v. 6 and always). Lachmann’s conjecture (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
p- 889, and Praef. p. xii.), which is adopted by Billroth : 17 7d xabynud pov" 
ovdeic kevoose (Comp. xv. 31), breaks up the passage unnecessarily ; and the 
same meaning would be arrived at more easily and simply, were we merely 
to write 7 with the circumflex, in the sense of sane, which is so common in 
the classics (Bacumlein, Partik. p. 119 f.) : in truth, no one will make my 
glory void. But this use of 7 does not occur in the N. T.  Riickert’s opinion 
is, that what we find in the old mss. gives no sense at all ;* we cannot tell 
what Paul actually wrote ; but that the best [how far ?] of what we have to 
choose from is the Recepta. Ewald, too, and Hofmann, follow the latter.— 
It does not follow from ver. 14 that by arodaveiv we are to understand pre- 
cisely death by famine (so Billroth, with Theophylact, Erasmus, Piscator, 
al.) ; but the thought is generally to this effect : so far from letting myself 
be supported by the churches, I will rather be kept by death from this dis- 
grace, by which, while I live, I shall let no one rob me of my glory. The 
idea is that of av7i tov Civ arodviokery eixdedc, Isocr. Hoag. 1. The apostle’s 
kabynua Would have been made empty (xevdcer), if he had been brought to a 
course of action whereby that in which he gloried would have appeared to 
be without reality. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8. He would thus have been shown 
to be xeveavyfce (Homer, L1, viii. 230). (7) 

Ver. 16. Why Paul has every reason (yép) to hold his raiynue thus fast. 
For the preaching of the gospel, taken by itself, does not put him in a position 
to boast himself. All the less, therefore, can he afford to give up the only 
thing that does place him in such a position, namely, his preaching without 
recompense. — avdyxy yap pos émix.| sc. evayyeAifecda, as is proved by what 
goes before. Comp.-Homer, J/. vi. 458 : xparep7 0 éxixeicer’ avaynn, and the 
common phrase in the classics : avaykyv éxebeivat.—ovai ydp jot éotiv] Comp. 
LXX. in Hos. ix. 12. Woe betides him, 7.e. God’s threatened judgment 
will fulfil itself upon him (in the coming day of judgment), if he shall not 
have preached the gospel (eiayyeAiowua, see the critical remarks) ; from this 
is evident (yap) how the avay«y arises, namely, that he must preach ; he can- 
not give it up, without incurring eternal destruction. 

Ver. 1¢ f. The sentence immediately preceding this verse, oval yap... 
evayy., was merely a thought interposed, a logical parenthesis, to the con- 
tents of which Paul does not again refer in what follows. In ver. 17 f., 
accordingly, with its yap, the reference is not to this preceding sentence 
ovai x.T.A., SO as to establish it by way of dilemma (which was my former 


1 The readings of B D* &* and A give the evacuat’’), give the plain and good sense: 
above sense; F Gagain, with their tts cevd- for it is better for me to die (than that such a 
cet, in which it is simplest to take the tts as thing should happen in my case); o7 who 
an interrogative (comp. Boerner: “quis will bring my glory to nought ? 


CHAPY Uxiy li. 207 
interpretation), but to avéyxy yor éxixectar, ver. 16 (comp. de Wette, Osiander, 
Hofmann), and that indeed in so far as these latter words were set down to 
confirm the previous assertion, éav evayyerifwpat, ov« éoti wor kabynua. The cor- 
rectness of this reference of the ya4p which introduces ver. 17 f., is confirmed 
by the fact that the leading conceptions in the argument of ver. 17 f., to 
wit, écév and dxwv, are correlative to the conception of dvdy«y in ver. 16. 
The ydp in ver. 17 thus serves to justify the second ydp in ver. 16, as we 
often find, both in Greek writers and in the N. T., ydép repeated in such a 
significant correlation as we find here (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 110 f.). 
In order to prove that he has rightly established his previous statement éav 
. . . kabynua by adding avayxy yap pot érixeira, the apostle argues, starting 
now from the opposite of that avdyxy, and therefore ¢ contrario, as follows : 
“¢ Hor supposing that I carry on my preaching (roito mpdcow) of free self-de- 
termination, then I have a reward, of which, consequently, I can glory ; but 
if I do it not of my own free will (and this, in point of fact, was the case 
with the apostle), then it is a stewardship with which I am entrusted, which 
therefore (this is the purport of the interrogatory clause which follows, ric 
obv k.T.A.) involves no reward for me.”—From this simple course of thought 
—in which the picfdv éyw refers to the certain possession hereafter of the 
Messianic reward,* and is conceived as the more specially defined contents of 
the xabyyua in ver. 16,—it will be seen that the apodosis of the second half 
of ver. 17 is oixovowiav reriorevuat, that these words, consequently, should 
neither be put in a parenthesis nor attached to the protasis (so Knatchbull, 
Semler, Hofmann—comp. also his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 332) by reading ei 
dé dkwv olKov. wexiorevuas together, to which ric ody «.r.A. would then become 
the apodosis ; *—a view under which the significant bearing of the purpose- 
ly chosen phrase oixov. rexiorevya is entirely lost sight of. Buillroth, failing 
to recognize how essential ¢ dé dxwv, olx. wexior. is to the argument, makes 
it parenthetical, and understands d«wy (with Bengel, Zachariac, and Schulz) 
as meaning non gratis, which is contrary to the signification of the word. 
Many expositors render éxév and dor by ‘‘ with joy and gladness” and ‘‘ with 
reluctance” (so Calovius, Piscator, Estius, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, 
al. ; comp. also Ewald); but this runs counter to the fact that, as ri¢ obv 
. . . ptc0dc shows, the apostle’s own case is not the first, but the last of the 
two cases supposed by him, and that he found himself indeed in the official 
position of a preacher without having chosen it of his own free will,—being 
rather apprehended (Phil. ii. 12), and, through his call (Acts ix. 22, 26), as 
it were constrained by Christ (é& avdyxyjg dxwv, Plato, Legg. v. 734 B),— 


1 On piobdy €xerv, comp. Matt. vi.1. Itis text. In Herodotus ix. 48, which Hofmann 


the opposite of ovai mo éoriv, and hence 
picds cannot mean the reward which lies 
in the very action itself, namely, the se/f- 
satisfaction to which it gives rise (Hof- 
mann). 

2 As regards the otv of the apodosis, see 
on Rom. ii. 17-24. It would have been 
exceedingly wncalled for after such a short 
and perfectly simple protasis as that in the 


adduces (also Hartung, Partik. II. p. 22), it 
is otherwise (ot 8’.év «.7.A.). Moreover, itis 
a special peculiarity of Herodotus to put 
ovv before the apodosis; whereas, with 
Paul, it occurs only in Romans loc. cit., 
where it comes in after an accumulated 
series of protases and, as an epanaledsis, 
was quite appropriate. 


208 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

but, notwithstanding, pursued his work with heart and hand. — olxovoyiav 
netior. | olxov. has significant emphasis ; as to the construction, comp. Rom. 
iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7% If I preach dxor, so Paul holds, then the apostleship, 
with which Iam put in trust, stands in the relation of the stewardship of a 
household (iv. 1) ; for that, too, a man receives not from his own free choice, 
but by the master’s will, which he has to obey ; and hence it follows (oir) 
that no reward awaits me (this being the negative sense of tic . . . pucbdc 5 
comp. Matt. v. 46 ; Rom. vi. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32) ; for a steward—conceived 
of as a slave '—can but do his duty (Luke xvii. 10), whereas one who works 
of his own free will does more than he is bound to do, and so labours in a 
sense worthy of reward. The meanings which some expositors find in oik. 
mex. are inserted by themselves ; thus Pott explains, ‘‘ nihilosecius peragen- 
dum est,” comp. Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Schrader, Neander, and older 
interpreters ; while Grotius makes it, ‘‘ratio mihi reddenda est impositi 
muneris.”” The words convey nothing more than just their simple literal 
meaning. What, again, is inferred from them, Paul himself tells us by be- 
ginning a new sentence with ric oiv. To suppose a middle clause omitted be- 
fore this sentence (with Neander, who would insert, ‘‘ How am I am now 
to prove that I do it of my own free will ?””) is to make a purely arbitrary 
interruption in the passage. — 6 picddc| the befitting reward. Neither here 
nor in the first clause is poddc the same as kabynua (Pott, Riickert, Ewald, 
al.); but it is viewed as standing in the relation of the inducing cause to 
that éort yor kabynua, Supposing the latter to take place. This also applies 
against Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 541 ff., who, moreover, pronounces 
the apostle’s argument an unsound one. The distinction which Paul here 
makes is, in his opinion, at variance with the absolute ground of obligation 
in the moral consciousness, and is either purely a piece of dialectics, or has 
for its real basis the idea of the opera supererogationis. In point of fact, nei- 
ther the one nor the other is the case ; but Paul is speaking of the apostolic 
reward hereafter, concerning which he was persuaded that it was not to be 
procured for him by his apostolic labour in itself, seeing that he had not, in 
truth, come to the apostleship of his own free will ; rather, in his case, must 
the element of free self-determination come in in another way, namely, by 
his labouring without receiving anything in return. In so far, accordingly, 
he must do something more than the other apostles in order that he might 
receive the reward. He had recognized this to be his peculiar duty of love, 
incumbent upon him also with a view to avert all ground of offence, but not 
_ as implying surplus merit. The latter notion is discovered in the text by 
Cornelius a Lapide and others. 

Ver. 18. “Iva] is taken by Grotius as meaning if, by Luther and most in- 
terpreters—among whom are Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald—as 
used in place of the exegetical infinitive, so that it gives the answer to the 
foregoing question.? The first of these renderings is linguistically incor- 





17This is not an arbitrary assumption (as 2 Wetstein, with whom Baur agrees, re- 
Hofmann objects), since it is well enough marks: ‘ arguée dictum, nullum mercedem 
known that the oixovduor were, as arule, accipere, haec mea merces est.’’ But had 
slaves. Paul intended any such point, he must have 


CHAP. Ix., 19-22. 209 


rect ; the second would have to be referred to the conception : ‘‘ J ought,” 
etc., but. yet does not suit the negation: ‘‘ I have therefore no reward,” which 
had its animated expression in the question: ri¢ oty x.7.A. Itis much 
better to interpret iva evayy. «.7.A. as stating the aim, according to God's 
ordination, of this negative condition. of things: in order that I should 
preach without recompense (which is the: first thing to give me a prospect of 
reward, as being something which lies beyond my official obligation). 
Hofmann’s view is, that Paul asks, What reward (viz. none) could induce 
him to this, to make the gospel message free of cost ? But plainly it was just 
his supporting himself in the discharge of his vocation, which went beyond 
the obligation of the oixovouia, and consequently made him worthy of reward, 
which the work of the oixovéuoc, taken by itself alone, did not do. More- 
over, this interpretation of Hofmann’s would require an expression, not of 
the design (iva), but of the inducing ground (such as dv év). The iva is 
used here, asso often in the N. T., to indicate the divine teleology (Winer, p. 
427 [E. T. 573]). —ebayyedl. adar. Ofaw 1d evayy.| i.e. in order that I, by 
my preaching, may make the gospel something not connected with any outlay (on 
the part of the receivers). As regards this very common use of riOnu, facio, 
- see Kypke and Losner in loc. Comp. also on Rom. iv. 17, and Hermann, 
ad Viger. p. 761. There is no need of going out of the way to render it, 
with Beza: set forth, with Grotius : collocare, like rifévar yap, or with 
Pott : to set before them (as spiritual food). "Iva, with the future indicative, 
conveys the idea of continuance. See Matthiae, p. 1186. Among the older 
Greek writers ézwe (also é¢pa) is ordinarily used in this connection (Matthiae, 
_l.c. ; Kiihner, Il. p. 490), while this use of iva is, to say the least, very 
doubtful (see against Elmsley, ad Hur. Bacch. p. 164, Hermann, ad Soph. 
Oed. Col. 155 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629 f.) in the N. T. again, and with 
later authors it is certain (Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. 
p. 202 [E. T. 234]). —eic 7d uy xarayp.|] aim of his addr. ribévar 76 ebayy.: 
an order not to make use of. To understand xatayp. as meaning to misuse 
(comp. on vii. 31), would give a sense much too weak for the connection 
(against Beza, Calovius, and others, among whom is Ewald). The right 
rendering already appears in the Greek Fathers. —év 76 evayy.] z.e. in do- 
cendo evangelio.—The é&ovoia wov is not exclusively that indicated in ver. 4, 
but the apostolic prerogative generally, although in applicatiqp to this par- 
ticular point. . 
Vy. 19-22. Confirmation of this ei¢ 7d pu) katayp. t. é& wou by his practical 
procedure in other matters, which was such, that not to renounce the use 
of that éfovcia would simply be to contradict himself ; it would be a gross 
inconsistency. — éx rdvrwv| Mase. It belonged to the apostolic é£ovcia to put 
himself in bondage to no man, but to be independent of ail (ver. 1 ; comp. 
Gal. 1. 10) ; to hold and to make good this position of freedom towards 
every one, was aresult flowing from, and a constituent part of, his rights 
- as an apostle (in opposition to Hofmann, who asserts that a position precisely 


expressed it by ducaA0s or auic6i. He would  evayy., or something similar, if he had put 
possibly have written tva aducOos knpvéw 7d iva at all instead of the infinitive. 


210 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the converse of this was the only one logically tenable by the apostle).’ 
Notwithstanding, Paul had made himself a bondsman to all, accommodat- 
ing himself to their necessities in self-denial to.serve them. It is only here 
that éAet@epoc occurs with éx ; elsewhere (Rom. vii. 3; comp. Rom. vi. 18, 
22, vill. 2, 21) and in Greek writers with a7é. —rovd¢ rAkiovac] t.e. according 
to the context : the greater part of the rdvrec, not : more than are convert- 
ed by others (Hofmann). (r’) Comp. x. 5. By acting otherwise he would 
have won, it might be, only individuals here and there. — xepdjow] namely, 
Sor Christ and His kingdom, by their conversion. Riickert explains it as 
meaning : to carry off as an advantage for himself, which Hofmann, too, 
includes. But the precise sense of the phrase must be determined by the 
context, which speaks in reality of the apostle’s official labours, so that in sub- 
stance the meaning is the same as that of oéow in ver. 22. Comp. Matt. 
xviii. 15; 1 Pet. iii.1. Regarding the form éxépdyoa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 740. | 
Ver. 20. Explanation in detail of the preceding verse (kai epexegetical). — 
To the Jews Paul became as a Jew, 7.e. in his relations to the Jews, whom he 
sought to convert, he behaved in Jewish fashion, observing e.g. Jewish 
customs (Acts xvi. 3, xxi. 26), availing himself of Jewish methods of teach- 
ing, etc., in order to win Jews. Jewish Christians are not included here 
(Vorstius, Billroth) ; for these were, as such, already won and saved. — 
roic Urd vouov| to those under the law ; not really different from roi¢ "Iovdaiorc, 
save only that they are designated here from their characteristic religious posi- 
tion, into which Paul entered. The universal nature of the expression is 
enough of itself to show that Judaizing Christians cannot be intended ; nor 
proselytes,—although they are by no means to be excluded from either cate- 
gory,—because they, too, would not have their specific characteristic brought 
out by izd véuov. The very same reason holds against the supposition that 
the rigid Jews, the Pharisees, are meant. The first of these three views is taken 
by Theodoret, the second by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Mosheim, al. ; 
Theophylact is undecided which of the two to prefer, comp. also Chrysostom ; 
Lightfoot and Heydenreich adopt the third. — pA dv airic br6 véuov] although 
I myself (for my own part) am not, etc., a caveat very naturally arising from 
his consciousness of the high value of his freedom as regards the law, Gal. ii. 
19. There is no proof of any apologetic design here (in reference to such as 
might have said : Thou must do so and so, Riickert). Paul did not add 
any remark of this kind in connection with the preceding clause, because 
in respect of nationality he actually was an ’lovdaioc. — trove id vdu.| The 
article denotes the class of men in question. 
Ver. 21. Toic avéuouc] i.e. to the heathen, Rom. ii. 12. Comp. Suicer, Thes. 
I. p. 366. —o¢ dvouoc| by holding intercourse with them, giving up Jewish 
observances, teaching in Hellenic form (as at Athens, Acts xvii.). Comp. 


1 According to Hofmann, Paul establishes for the same end for which he refrained 
the negative question ris odv pot éativ 0 pLo- from claiming support. This view is con- 
%d6s by the sentence linked to it with yap, nected with his incorrect rendering of ver. 
which states that, so far from receiving 18, and falls with it, 
reward, he had given up his freedom, ete., 


CHAP. IX., 22. 211 
Isidor. Pelus. ed. Paris, 1638, p. 186. — pu) ov «.7.2.] must similarly be re- 
garded not exactly as a defence of himself (Grotius, Riickert), but as arising 
very naturally from the pious feeling of the apostle, who, with all the con- 
sciousness of his freedom of position towards the Mosaic law, which allowed 
him to be roi¢ avéuorg &¢ Gvowoc, always recognized his subjection to the divine 
véuoc revealed in Christ. In spite, therefore, of his thus condescending to 
the avéuoic, he was by no means one without legal obligation to God (no 
avouoc Oeov’), but one—and this is precisely what brings out the absolute 
character of the opposite-—-who stood within the sphere of legal obligation 
to Christ. And Paul was conscious that he stood thus in virtue of his 
faith in Christ, who lived in him (Gal. ii. 20), and in conformity with the 
gospel, which ruled him as the vduoc tov rvebuatocg Kai ti¢ yapitog (Chrysos- 
tom), and was to him accordingly the higher analogue of the venerated 
véuoc (Rom. iii. 27), which has its fulfilment in love (Rom. xiii. 10) ; comp. 
Gal. vi. 2. The two genitives Ooi and Xproroi: denote simply in relation to, 
in my position towards ; they thus give to the two notions dvopyoc and évvopoc 
their definite reference. 

Ver. 22. The dofeveic are Christians weak as yet in discernment and moral 
power (viii. 7 ff.; Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1; Acts xx. 35 ; 1 Thess. v. 14). The 
terms xepdfow and céow are not inconsistent with this view, for such weak 
believers would, by an inconsiderate conduct towards them, be made to 
stumble, and would fall into destruction (viii. 11 ; Rom. xiv. 15). To under- 
stand the phrase as denoting non-Christians from their lack of the higher 
_ powers of Christian life, especially of strength of conscience (Riickert, de 
Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), is against the formal use of oi dofeveic, and can- 
not be justified by Rom. v. 6. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 29. —dé¢ dodevic] 
‘*nerinde quasi simili tenerer imbecillitate,” Erasmus, Paraphr. — roi¢ race 
x.T.A.] to all (with whom I had to do) I have become all, have suited myself 
to them in all ways according to their circumstances. Comp. as regards 
mavra yivecba,*® the passages cited in Kypke, I. p. 215 f., and observe the 
perfect here at the close ; comp. Col. i. 15.—Paul did not need to say to his 
readers that in this whole picture of his cvyxataGaci he is expressing no mere 
men-pleasing or anti-Christian connivance at sin, but the practical wisdom 
of the truest Christian love and self-denial in the exercise of his apostolic 
functions ; he trusts them to understand this from their knowledge of his 
character. Comp. also Gal. i. 10, ii. 3-5. This practical wisdom must be 
‘all the more regarded as a fruit of experience under the discipline of the 
Spirit, when we consider how fiery and decided his natural temperament 
was. And who can estimate how much he achieved by this method of 
working ! Comp. Neander in opposition to Riickert’s unfavourable judg- 
ment. Augustine puts it well: ‘‘non mentientis actus, sed compatientis 


1 Hofmann’s conjecture, that Paul wrote 
' eo (following it, however, with Xprorod), 
has virtually no critical foundation, and is 
wholly devoid of exegetical basis. Hof- 
mann explains the passage as if he read 
évvonos Xpiotod ovK wy avowos @eo, making 
Paul say of *‘ his being shut upin the law of 


Christ, that it made him one who was not 
without law in his relation to God.”’ 

2 Not to be confounded with the expres- 
sion wavtTa yiveodat tut, Which means instar 
omnium fiert alicui, as in Xen, Hph. ii. 13; 
comp. Locella in doc., p. 209. 


212 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


affectus.” — ravtwc] i any case (comp. on ver. 10, and Plato, Phaedr. p. 
266 D ; 2 Macc. iii. 138 ; 8 Macc. i. 15 ; the reverse of oidauéc, Plato, Soph. 
p. 240 E; comp. the frequent phrase rdvry rdvtwc, Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Phaed. p. 78 D). Should the apostle in every case, in which he adapted 
himself as described in vv. 19-22, save some,—that is, in the one case of ac- 
commodation these, in the other those, but in all some,—there would result 
the rieiovec of ver. 19, whom it was his design to win as there summarily 
set forth. — cécw] make them partakers in the Messianic (salvation, vii. 16, 
x. 33 ; Rom. ix. 27, al. Not different in substance from kepdjow, but strong- 
er and more specific, as was suitable in expressing the jinal result. Comp. 
Dna iveiG: 

Ver. 23. ILdvra 02 ror] quite general ; now all that I dois done for the 
gospel’s sake. — iva ovyxovv. aitov yev.] Epexegesis of did 70 evayy.: in order 
that I may become a fellow-partaker therein. (@*) Comp. on ovyxow., Rom. xi. 
17. Whoever is included as belonging to those in whom the salvation pro- 
claimed in the gospel shall be fulfilled (at the day of judgment), enters 
along with them when this fulfilment is accomplished into the participa- 
tion of the gospel, to wit, through sharing in the common fruition of that 
which forms the real contents of the message of salvation. Hence the mean- 
ing in substance is : in order to become one of those in whom the gospel will 
realize itself, through their attaining the Messianic salvation. Note the hu- 
mility of the expression ; he who laboured more than all others, has yet in 
view no higher reward for himself than just the salvation common to all 
believers. Flatt and Billroth make it : in order to take part i the spread- 
ing of the gospel. But the aim here stated corresponds to the pafeiovr in ver. 
24. The inward salvation of the moral life again (Semler and Pott) is only 
the ethical path of development, whereby men ultimately reach the ovyxovo- 
via here intended. . Comp. Phil. iii. 10 ff. 3 

Ver. 24 ff. Exhortation to his readers to follow his example, clothed in 
figures borrowed from the relations of athletic competition among the 
Greeks (comp. Phil. iii. 12 ff.).—Doubtless Paul, writing to the Corinthians, 
was thinking of the [sthmian games, which continued to be held even after 
the destruction of the city by Mummius (Pausanias, ii. 2). There is no 
sufficient ground for supposing the Olympic games to be meant, as those 
in which the foot-race formed a peculiarly prominent feature (Spanheim, 
‘Wolf, al.), for running was not excluded at the other places of competition ; 
and it is not necessary to assume that the apostle had a knowledge enabling 
him to make nice distinctions between the different kinds of contest at the 
different games. —16 BpaBeiov] Aéyetar O8 obTw Td Stddmevov yépac TO viKhoavT 
aOAnThH, ard piv Tov didvTov avTo BoaBevrdv BpaBetov, axd dé TOV AOAobvTOY 
a@Aov, Scholiast on Pindar, O1.1.5.  Srédoc dé éots Tov ayGvoc (the Isthmian) 
mituc (pine), 7d 68 avéxabev oédiva (not ivy, but parsley) kai aitod Hv orépavoc, 
Scholiast on Pindar, Jsthm. ixdSeore 3 comp. Plutarch, qu. symp. v. 3, and 
see Boeckh and Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii. 33 ; Hermann, gottesdienstl. Al- 
terth. § 50. 27, ed. 2. In the application (iva catad.), we are to understand 
the future Messianic salvation which all may reach. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12. — 
obrw tpéyere, iva] should not be rendered, as it is by most expositors, ‘‘ so 


CHAP. IX., 25-27, 213 


gun, that,”—which the iva, as a particle expressive of design, makes inad- 
missible (comp. vv. 26, 27),—but : in such way run (like the one referred 
to), in order that. This does away, too, with the awkwardness which would 
otherwise be involved in ei¢ with the plural «xaraAdByre. Paul exhorts his 
readers to run in a way as worthy of the prize (so to shape their inner and 
outer life), as the one who, by decision of the judge, receives the crown for 
the foot-race, in order that they may attain to it (¢.e. the crown of the Mes- 
sianic salvation). (a’) There is no need for the arbitrary insertion of the 
idea : ‘‘ as is necessary, in order that,” etc. (Hofmann), 

Ver. 25. Aé] marks the transition to the course of conduct observed by 
any competitor for a prize. —'The emphasis is on rac. It is from it that the 
conclusion is then drawn in ver. 26, éy@ roivuit — 6 aywvifdu.| used as a sub- 
stantive. The statement is as to what every competitor does to prepare him- 
self for his struggle ; in all respects he exercises self-control (éyxpar., see on Vil. 
9). The word dywvifecda: denotes every kind of competition, and includes 
therefore the more specific tpéyewv (comp. Herod. v. 22 ; Xen. Anab, iv. 8. 
27: aywvilecdar ordduov). Regarding the abstinence (especially from wine, 
sexual intercourse, and all heavy food except a good flesh-diet), by which 
the competitors had to prepare themselves for the struggle for ten months 
previously, see Intpp. ad Hor. Art. Poet. 412 ff. ; Valckenaer, p. 251 ; 
Rosenmiiller, Morgen’. VI. p. 97 f. ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 50. 16 f. — 
nxavra| Accusative of more precise definition. See Lobeck, ad Aj. 1402. 
Comp. ix. 25. — éketvor pév obv x.7.A.]| ili quidem igitur, to wit, the competi- 
tors proper. — ijucic] we Christians. The rdvra éyxpateveoda: holds of both 
the aywvifouévor, only with the first it is in the sphere of the body; with the 
second, in the moral domain. That the Christians, as striving in the moral 
field, actually ravra éyxparetovra, is assumed by Paul, speaking from his ideal 
point of view, as a thing of course. 

Vv. 26, 27. So run I then, seeing that I, for my part, according +o ver. 
25, am prepared by such abstinence to strive for the incorruptible crown, in 
such a way as, etc. The apostle thus sets his own ethical mode of striving 
(as arunner and combatant) before his readers asa pattern. Respecting 
the following rofvuy, which Paul has only in this passage, comp. Luke xx. 
25 ; Heb. xiii. 13 ; Hartung, Partik. II. p. 349 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 251 f. 
 —ovk adhiwc] se. tpéxov. The word means wnapparent, not clear, reverse of 
mpddnaoc. It may’either be applied objectively to an action which is indistinct 
and not cognizable to others (Luke xi. 44 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 8); or subjectively, 
so that the mam who acts, hopes, etc., is himself not clear, but uncertain and 
hesitating as to manner, aim, and result ; comp. 2 Macc. vit. 34; 3 Macc. 
iv. 4; Thue. i. 2. 1; Plato, Symp. p. 181 D; Soph. TZrach. 667 ; Dem. 
416. 4; Polyb. xxx. 4. 17, viii. 3. 2, vi. 56. 11, ili. 54. 5: adgrog ériBaore ; 
also in Xenoph., Plutarch, etc. So here ; and hence we should render : 
not without a clearly conscious assurance and certainty of running so as to reach 
the goal. Comp. Vulgate, ‘‘non in incertum ;” Chrysostom : mpd¢ oxordv 
Tiva BAérwr, ovK Elkh Kal party, Phil. ili. 14, xara oKxordy dtdHkw éxi 7d Bpafeior, 
Bengel, ‘‘ Scio quod petam et quomodo,” Melanchthon, ‘‘non coeco impetu 
sine cogitatione finis.” Hofmann takes it otherwise : ‘‘in whose case it is 


, 


214 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


quite apparent whither he would go,” thus bringing out the objective sense ; 
comp. also Grotius. But this would convey too little, for as a matter of 
course it must be plain in the case of every runner in a race whither he 
would go. Homberg’s rendering is better : ‘‘ut non in obscuro sim, sed 
potius inter reliquos emineam.” Comp. Ewald: ‘‘not asin the dark, but 
_as in the sight of all. Still this does not correspond so well with the parallel 
oc obk aépa dépov, Which implies the conception of the end in view. Alex. 
Morus and Billroth (comp. Olshausen) understand it as meaning, not with- 
out definite aim (not simply for private exercise). But this runs counter to 
the whole context, in which Paul is set forth as an actual runner in a race- 
course, so that the negative thus conveyed would be inappropriate. — ov« 
aépa dépov| The boxer ought to strike his opponent, and not, missing him, 
to beat the air, to deal strokes in air. Comp. the German phrase, ‘‘ 27's 
Blaue hinein.” See Eustath. ad Il. p. 663, 17, and the instances given by 
Wetstein. Comp. Theophilus, ad Autol. iii. 1. The context (see above on 
adja.) forbids us to render, with Theodoret, Calovius, Bengel, Zachariae, 
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann, and others : not in imaginary com- 
bat merely, without a real antagonist (cx:auayia). Respecting the ovx in this 
passage, see Winer, p. 452 [E. T. 609]. —aaw brardfo x.7.A.| but LT beat my 
body blue,—alteration of the construction, in order to make the thought 
stand out in a more independent way ; comp. on vii. 37. The dd, how- 
ever, can have the effect only of presenting what is here stated as the oppo- 
site of dépa dépwv, not as that whereby a man simply prepares himself for the 
contest (Hofmann, comp. Pott). Paul regards his own body (the céua rij¢ 
capkéc, Col. ii. 11, the seat of the nature opposed to God, of the law in his 
members, comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 23) as the adversary (avtaywviorhe), against 
whom he fights with an energetic and successful vehemence, just as a boxer 
beats the face of his opponent black and blue (respecting tromdfev, comp. 
on Luke xviii. 5, and Bos, Hvercitt. p. 140 ff.), so that those lusts (Gal. v. 
17), which war against the regenerate inner man, whose new principle of life 
is the Holy Spirit, lose their power and are not fulfilled. It is in substance 
the same thing as rd¢ mpd£ec¢ Tov cHyatog Vavarovv in Rom, viii. 13 ; comp. 
Col. ii. 5. The result of the trwmidfo «.7.A. is, that the body becomes sub- 
missive to the moral will,’ yea, the members become weapons of righteous- 
ness (Rom. vi. 13). Hence Paul adds further : x. dovAaywyo, I make it a 
slave (Diodorus, xii. 24 ; Theophrastus, Hp. 36 ; Theophyl. Simoc. Hp. 4), 
which also ‘‘a pyctis desumptum est ; nam qui vicerat, victum trahebat ad- 
versarium quasi servum,”’ Grotius. Against the abuse of this passage to 
favour ascetic scourgings of the body, see Deyling, Obdss. I. p. 322 ff., ed. 
3. — dAdowg wnpttac| after having been a herald to others. 'The apostle still 
keeps to the same figure, comparing his preaching, in which he summoned 
and exhorted men to the Christian life, to the office of the herald who made 
known the laws of the games and called the champions to the combat. 
Riickert, who (with Chrysostom, Grotius, al.) regards «yp. as denoting 


1 Comp. the weaker analogies in profane writers, as Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 28; Cicero, Of. i. 
23. 79. 


NOTES. 215 


preaching without reference to the work of a herald, reminds us, in opposi- 
tion to the above view (comp. de Wette), that the herald certainly did not 
himself join in the combat. But this objection does not hold, for with Paul 
the case stood thus: He, in point of fact, was a herald, who joined personally 
in the contest ; and he had therefore to carry through his figure upon this 
footing, even although he thereby departed from the actually subsisting re- 
lations at the combats in the games.’ — dddximoc| rejectaneus, unapproved, 4.é. 
however, not ‘‘ne dignus quidem, qui ad certamen omnino admittar” (Pott), 
—for Paul is, from vv. 26, 27, actually in the midst of the contest, —but 
praemio indignus,—uyn todv¢ dAdove Td déov diWdEag avtig Tov Tédoveg TOV GyOvwy 
ravteAae diaudptw, Theodoret. (1*) 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(A) Paul’s defence. Ver. 3. 


The Revised Version very properly agrees with Meyer in his view of the con- 
nection, and puts a period at the end of ver. 3. Obviously what the Apostle 
was defending was the fact of his Apostleship, and not his claim to equal rights 
with the other apostles. All the recent critics unite in this view. 


(B') ‘** Power to lead about a wife.” Ver. 5. 


Stanley says that two things are implied in this verse, viz. 1. That Paul was 
unmarried, which agrees with vii. 7; and 2. that the apostles generally were 
married, which agrees with the common tradition respecting all of them but 
John. 


(c!) “‘ Doth God care for oxen?’’ Ver. 9. 


The author’s remarks on this vexed passage are weighty, and yet there seems 
room for further statement, Stanley says: ‘‘ This isone of the many instances 
where the lesson which is regarded as subordinate is denied altogether, as in 
Hosea vi. 6, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice.’ God feeds the young ravens 
when they cry (Ps. cxlvii. 9), and the fowls of the air (Matt. vi. 26), and 
therefore Paul could not possibly intend to deny that the primary object of the 
precept was to secure just treatment for the laboring animal. What he means 
is that it had also a higher reference, viz., to teach the important truth that all 
labor should have its due compensation, and that they who by their toil obtain 
food for others ought themselves to share it.”’ 


(p!) The sense of éfovaia. Ver. 12. 


In this verse is the fifth instance in the present chapter in which this word 
occurs. It is rendered in the common version power, for which Greeks usually 
employed another word (dunamis). The Revised Version in every case substi- 
tutes right (see vv. 4, 5, 6, 12), the sense being not physical, but moral au- 
thority. 


1 [Stanley remarks concerning this com- and that sometimes, as in the case of Nero, 
plication of the metaphor,that it is rendered the victor in the games was also selected 
less violent by the fact that the office of the as the herald to announce his success. — 
herald itself was an object of competition, T.W. C.] 


216 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


(e') Paul's glorying. Ver. 15. 

Both the true reading and the correct rendering of this verse are violently dis- 
puted, but happily all agree as to its essential meaning, viz. that Paul would 
rather die than abandon what was the chief boast of his life. In the next verses 
he declares that the preaching of the Gospel is in itself no merit in him, but an 
irresistible necessity, a bounden duty. He is simply a servant doing what is 
commanded him (Luke xvii. 10), or a steward fulfilling his function (1 Cor. 
iv. i). Still, if he did the service willingly, voluntarily, and not merely out of 
a sense of obligation, he had a reward. Then in reply to the question, What is 
this reward? the answer is, ‘‘ My reward is that I have no reward.”’ To preach 
the Gospel without pay was what he coveted. To be permitted to serve others 
gratuitously was an honour and happiness. 


(r!) ‘* That I might gain the more.” Ver. 19. 


Canon Evans well says: ‘It is the more of comparison between a lesser num- 
ber gained out of some classes, and a greater number gained out of all.’’ He 
would have greater success through gratuitious preaching attracting all, than 
through paid preaching attracting some but repelling others. 


(a!) ** That I may become a fellow-partaker.”” Ver, 23. 


A new thought is here introduced. Up to this point he had been speaking of 
his self-denial for the sake of others ; here he begins to speak of it for his own 
sake. It is no longer ‘‘that I may save some,” but ‘‘ that I may be partaker of 
the Gospel with you,”’ i.e. as well as you. Do not think that I do not require 
this for myself. In order to do good, we must begood. To extend our Chris- 
tian liberty to its utmost range is dangerous, not only for others but for our- 
selves. This argument is supported, first, by his own example (ix. 24-27); sec- 
ondly, by the warning of the Israelitish history (x. 1-12) (Stanley). 


(a!) ‘* In such way run that ye may obtain.” Ver. 24. 


The application of the metaphor of the race to the progress of the Christian 
here occurs for the first time. Afterwards it is found in Philip. iii. 12, 14; 2 
Tim. iv. 7,8; Heb. xii. 1. The argument is, ‘‘It is not enough merely to ruan— 
all run ; but as there is only one who is victorious, so you must run, not with 
the slowness of the many, but with the energy of the one.’’ This imagery, as 
might be expected from discourses delivered in Palestine, never occurs in the 
Gospels (Stanley). 


(1!) « Lest I myself should be rejected.” Ver. 27. 


What an argument and whata reproof is this! The reckless and listless Ca- 
rinthians thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very verge of sin, 
while this devoted apostle considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for 
his salvation. Yet at other times he breaks out in the most joyful assurance of 
salvation, and says that he was persuaded that nothing in heaven, earth, or hell 
could ever separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38, 39). The one state 
of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is only those who are con- 
scious of this constant and deadly struggle with sin to whom this assurance is 
given. It is the indolent and self-indulgent Christian who is always in doubt 
(Hodge). 


CHAP. X. 217 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. yap] Elz. has dé, against decisive evidence. An alteration arising from 
failure to understand the connection. — Ver. 2. éGarticavro] ACD EF G8 
min. Dial. Bas. Cyr. al. have ¢Garrtic§yoav, Recommended by Griesb., adopted 
by Lachm. and Riickert. It is, however, an alteration to which copyists were 
induced by being accustomed to the passive of Garr. ; the middle is sufficient- 
ly attested by BK L, Orig. Chrys. al. — Ver. 9. Kvpiov] So BC 8, min. and 
several vss. and Fathers. The readings Oedv and Xprorév are interpretations, the 
first occurring in A, 2, Slav. ms. Bede, the second adopted by Elz. Scholz, and 
Tisch. on the authority of DEF GK L, min. vss. Fathers ; defended also by 
Reiche. Epiphanius avers Xpiordév to be a change made by Marcion. — Vv. 9, 
10. Elz. adds kai after xafdc ; but this has too powerful testimony against it to 
be admissible on the ground of ver. 8. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Riickert. 
— Ver. 9. azédovro] Rickert, following A (?) B 8, reads ardéAAvrto, as he does 
also in ver. 10 on the authority of A. Rightly in both cases ; the change of tense 
was overlooked. — Ver, 11. rdrra] is wanting after Jéin A B17, Sahid. and sev- 
eral Fathers. It comes before it in DEF G 8&, 3, Aeth. and some Fathers. 
Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riick. and Tisch.; an addition naturally sug- 
gested. —timo.] Lachm. and Riick. read tumixoc, following ABCK &, min. 
Syr. p. (on the margin), and many Fathers. Rightly ; the Recepta, defended 
by Reiche, is a repetition from ver. 6. As connected with tumixéc, how- 
ever, and resting on very much the same attestation (including &), ovvégai- 
vev Should be adopted in place of ovvéBaivov. — katnvtycev] Lachm, and Tisch, 
have katnvrnxev, on the authority of B D* E* F G 8, 39, 46, and some Fathers. 
An instance of the frequent transformation of the perfect into the aorist form, 
with which the transcribers were more familiar. — Ver. 13. Elz. has iwdc¢ after 
divac9a: ; but this is an addition opposed by decisive evidence.— Ver. 19. Lachm. 
Riick. and’ Tisch. invert the order of the two questions, following B C** DE 
8**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. Bede. Rightly. One 
of the two queries came to be left out, owing to the similarity in sound (so still 
in A C* and &*), and was afterwards restored where it seemed to stand most 
naturally (according to the order of origin and operation). Reiche, nevertheless, 
inhis Comm. crit. I. p. 240 f., tries to defend the Recepta (K L, with most of the 
min. Syr. utr. Goth. and Greek Fathers). — Ver. 20. @ Ove: ra #0vy] Lachm. 
Riick. and Tisch. read d §iovo1v, on very preponderant evidence (as also Odovow 
afterwards). The missing subject ra é0v7 was joined on to G@vovovv (so still in 
AC &), which thereupon drew after it the change to Odie. — Ver. 23. Elz. has 
foot after wdvra, against decisive evidence. Borrowed from vi. 12. — Ver. 24. 
After érépov Elz. has éxaoroc, in face of decisive testimony. Supplied, perhaps, 
from remembrance of Phil. ii, 4. — Ver. 27. dé] is wanting in A B D* FG 8, 
and some min. Copt. Vulg. Antioch. Chrys. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. al. Lachm. 
and Riick. are right in rejecting it as a mere connective addition. — Ver. 28. 
iepdGurov] approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Elz. and 


218 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Scholz. again have ¢«idwAdfvrov, contrary to AB H &, Sahid. and the indirect 
witnesses given by Tisch. The commoner word (which is defended by Reiche) 
was first written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — After ovveidnow 
Elz. has tov ydp Kupiov 4} yi kK. 70 TARpwua ai’T7G. A repetition of the clause in 
ver. 26, which crept from the margin into the text ; it is condemned by deci- 
sive testimony, as is also the dé which Elz. puts after «i in ver. 30. 


ConTENTS on to xi. 1.—The warnings supplied by the history of our 
fathers urge us to this self-conquest (vv. 1-11). Beware, therefore, of a 
fall ; the temptation has not yet gone beyond what you are able to bear, 
and God’s faithfulness will not suffer it to do so in the future ; flee, then, 
from idolatry (vv. 12-14). This exhortation is supported, as regards the 
eating of sacrificial meat, by the analogies of the Lord’s Supper and the 
Jewish usages in partaking of sacrifices (vv. 15-18). And therewith Paul 
returns from the long digression, which has occupied him since ix. 1, to his 
main subject, which he is now in a position to wind up and dispose of with 
all the more vigour and terseness (vv. 19-xi. 1). 

Ver. 1. Tap] Paul had already, in ix. 26 f., set himself before his readers 
as an example of se/f-conquest ; he now justifies his special enforcement of 
this duty by the warning example of the fathers. IAciov avtod¢ dedi=aabar 
BovanOeic Tov Kata Tov ’lopayA avauimrvgoxet, kai bowv arhiavoay ayabév Kal boat¢ 
TepléTecay Tiuwpiac. Kai KaAei TbroVE TobTwY éxeiva, OiddoKwY we Ta buoLla TEloOY- 
Tat THY buovavy artotiay KTyoduevor, Theodoret. —ov OéAw iu. ayv.| indicating 
something of importance. See on Rom. xi. 25. —oi warépec iu. d.e. our 
forefathers at the time of the exodus from Egypt. The apostle says 7dr, 
speaking, as in Rom.iv. 1, from his national consciousness, which was 
shared in by his Jewish readers, and well understood by his Gentile ones. 
The idea of the spiritual fatherhood of all believers (Rom. iv. 11 ff., de 
Wette, al.), or that of the O. T. ancestry of the N. T. church (Hofmann), 
would suit only with holy ancestors as being the trwe Israel (comp. Rom. ix. 
5 ff. ; Gal. vi. 16), but does not harmonize with the fact of the fathers here 
referred to being cited as warnings. — rdvre¢] has strong emphasis,* and is 
four times repeated, the coming contrast of ov« év toi¢ rAeioow, ver. 5, being 
already before the apostle’s mind. All had the blessing of the divine 
presence (id r. ved. Foav), all that of the passage through the sea; ali re- 
ceived the analogue of baptism, a// that of eating, a// that of drinking at the 
Lord’s Supper ; but with the majority God was not well pleased. — io r. veg. | 
The well-known (rfv) pillar of cloud (Ex. xiii. 21 f.), in which God’s pres- 
ence was, is conceived as spreading its canopy ovér (é7é) the march of the 
people that followed it. Comp. Ps. cv. 89; Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7. — did rij¢ 
Oar.| See Ex. xiv. 

Ver. 2. The discourse flows on in uninterrupted stream, beginning with 
the 67 in ver. 1, to the end of ver. 5; then follows the application in 
ver. 6. —ei¢ Tov Moiogr] in reference to Moses, so that they thereby devoted 
themselves to Moses as the deliverer and mediator whom God had sent 
them. Comp. on Rom. vi. 3; Matt. xxviii. 19.— éBarricavto| they had 


1 Grotius: ‘‘ tam qui sospites fuere, quam qui perierunt.”’ 


CHAP. X., 3, 4. 219 


themselves baptized, had the same thing, that is to say, done to them in refer- 
ence to Moses as you had done to you in reference to Christ. The middle, 
which is not put here for the passive,—comp., on the contrary, what was 
said regarding dredotc., vi. 11,—is purposely chosen, as in Acts xxii. 16, to 
denote the receptive sense (see Kihner, II. p. 18; Valckenaer, p. 256; 
Winer, p. 239 [E. T. 319]); foralthough éfarr., and the subsequent ééayoy 
and érov, do not represent any apparent merit, yet they certainly assume the 
reception of those wonderful divine manifestations, which nevertheless could 
not place the fathers, to whom such high privileges had been vouchsafed, 
in a position of safety afterwards, etc. — év rH ved.| év is local, as in Barrivew 
év tdatt, Matt. iii. 11, a/., indicating the element in which, by immersion 
and emergence, the baptism was effected. Just as the convert was baptized 
in water with reference to Christ, so also that O. T. analogue of baptism, 
which presents itself in the people of Israel at the passage of the Red Sea 
with reference to Moses, was effected in the cloud under which they were, 
and in the sea through which they passed. So far as the sacred cloud, 
familiar to the readers, is concerned, there is no need for the assumption, 
based somewhat uncertainly on Ps. Ixviii. 9, of a ‘‘ pluvia ex nube decidua” 
(Wolf, comp. Pott); neither, again, isit enough to define the point of com- 
parison simply as Grotius does (comp. de Wette) : ‘‘ Nubes impendebat 
illorum capiti, sic et aqua iis, qui baptizantur ; mare circumdabat eorum 
latera, sic et aqua eos, quibaptizantur.” The cloud and thesea, both being 
taken together as a type of the water of baptism, must be regarded as 
similar in nature. Comp. Pelagius : ‘Et nudes proprium humo rem portat;” 
so also Bengel : ‘‘ Nubes et mare sunt naturae aqueae (quare etiam Paulus 
de columna ignis silet).” (J’) Theodoret, on the other hand, with several 
more, among whom are Schrader, Olshausen, and Maier, makes the cloud a 
symbol of the Spirit (John iii. 5) ; but this would have against it the fact, 
that the baptism in the cloud (answering, according to this view, to the 
baptism of the Spirit) had preceded the baptism in the sea (water-baptism) ; 
so that we should have an incongruous representation of the baptism with 
water and the Holy Ghost. The cloud and the sea do not represent the tio 
elements in baptism, the former the heavenly, and the latter the earthly one; 
but both together form the undivided type of baptism. The type appro- 
‘ priated the subjects to Moses as his; the antitype appropriates them to 
Christ as His redeemed ones ; and in both instances thisis done with a view 
to their salvation, as in the one case from temporal bondage and ruin, so in 
the other from that which is spiritual and eternal. Wemay add, that there 
is room enough for the play of typico-allegorical interpretation, to allow the 
circumstance to be kept out of account that the Israelites went dry through 
the sea (Ex. xiv. 16 ff.). The most arbitrary working out of the exposition 
of details may be seen in Theodoret. 

Vv. 3, 4. Just as all received the self-same type of baptism (vv. 1, 2), so 
too all were partakers of one and the same analogue of the Christian ordi- 
nance of the Supper.'— 7rd airé] so that each one therefore stood on the very 


1 Bengel well says: ‘‘Si plura essent N. T. sacramenta, ceteris quoque simile quiddam 


220 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
' , 

same level of apparent certainty of not being cast off by God. — The Bpaua 
mvevuatixdy is the manna (Ex. xvi. 13 ff.), inasmuch as it was not, like com- 
mon food, a product of nature, but came as bread from heaven (Ps. Ixxviii. 
24 f.; Wisd. xvi. 20; John vi. 31 f.), the gift of God, who by His Spirit 
wrought marvellously for His people. Being vouchsafed by the ydpic rvev- 
patuch of Jehovah, it was, although material in itself, a ydpioua rvevwatixdy, a 
food of supernatural, divine, and spiritual origin. Comp. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia : rvevwarixdy Kadsi Kal TO Bpdua Kal Td r6ua, O¢ Gy Tod TvEebpaTog 
dudo dia TOV Movoéwe Kata THY andppyTov avTov TapaaydrTog dbvauty. ovTw dé Kal 
TVEVMATLKAY ExaAEoEV THY TETPAV, OC av TH Ovvamer TOV TvEebwatocg éxdovoay Ta bdaTa. 
What the Rabbins invented about the miraculous qualities of the manna may 
be seen in von der Hardt, Hphem. phil. pp. 101, 104 ; Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. 
Judenth, Il. p. 876 f., I. pp. 312, 467. Philo explains it as referring to the 
Logos, Leg. alleg. ii. p. 82, Quod. deter. pot. insid. sol. p. 213. — réua] Ex. 
xvii. 1-6 ; Num. xx. 2-11. Regarding the forms zréua and rapa, see Lobeck, 
Paral. p. 425 £. — ériwov . . . Xpiordc] a parenthetic explanation in detail 
as to the quite peculiar and marvellous character of this réua. The imper- 
Sect does not, like the preceding aorist, state the drinking absolutely as a 
historical fact, but is the descriptive imperfect, depicting the process of the 
éxcov according to the peculiar circumstances in which it took place ; it thus 
has a modal force, showing how things went on with the mdvtec . . . éruov, 
while it was taking place. Bengel remarks rightly on the yap: ‘‘ qualis 
petra, talis aqua.” — é« mvevuat. axor. wétpac? 4 68 métpa jv 6 X.]| from a spir- 
itual rock that followed them ; the Rock, however (which we speak of here), 
was Ohrist. Tlvevparixge has the emphasis ; it corresponds to the preceding 
mvevuatixév, and is explained more specifically by 7 dé 7. 7v 6X. The rela- 
tion denoted by axorovobonc, again, is assumed to be self-evident, and 
therefore no further explanation is given of the word. The thoughts, to 
which Paul here gives expression, are the following :—(1) To guard and 
help -the Israelites in their journey through the wilderness, Christ. accom- 
panied them, namely, in His pre-existent divine nature, and consequently as 
the Son of God (=the Adyog of John), who afterwards appeared as man 
(comp. Wisd. x. 15 ff.). (2) The rock, from which the water that they 
drank flowed, was not an ordinary natural rock, but a rérpa rvevuarixy ; not 
the mere appearance or phantasm of a rock, but an actual one, although of 
supernatural and heavenly origin, inasmuch as it was the real self-revelation 
and manifestation of the Son of God, who invisibly accompanied the host on 
its march ; it was, in other words, the very Christ from heaven, as being 
His own substantial and efficient presentation of Himself to men (comp. 
Tare. Isa. xvi. 1, and Philo’s view, p. 1103 A, that the rock was the cogia). 
(8) Such being the state of the case as to the rock, it must of necessity be a 
rock that followed, that accompanied and went with the children of Israel in 


posuisset Paulus.” At the same time, it nances in question. Both, however, are 
should be observed that the ecclesiastical equally essential and characteristic ele- 
notion of a sacrament does not appearin ments in the fellowship of the Christian 
the N. T., but is an abstraction from the _ life. Comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 200; Weiss, 
common characteristics of the two ordi- bibl. Theol. p. 353, 


CHAP. X., 3,74. 221 


their way through the desert ; for Christ in His pre-existent condition, the 
heavenly ‘‘substratum,” so to speak, of this rock, went constantly with 
them, so that everywhere in the wilderness His essential presence could 
manifest itself in their actual experience through the rock with its abun- 
dant water ; and, in point of fact, did so manifest itself itself again and 
again. In drinking from the rock, they had their thirst quenched by Christ, 
who, making the rock His form of manifestation, supplied the water from 
Himself, although this marvellous speciality about the way in which their 
thirst was met remained hidden from the Israelites. — Since the apostle’s 
words thus clearly and completely explain themselves, we have no right to 
ascribe to Paul, what was a later invention of the Rabbins, the notion that 
the rock rolled along after the marching host (Bammidbar, R. S. 1; Onkelos on 
Num. xxi, 18-20; and see Wetstein and Schéttgen, also Lund, Heiligth., 
ed. Wolf, p. 251) ; such fictions as these, when compared with what the 
apostle actually says, should certainly be regarded as extravagant after- 
growths (in opposition to Riickert and de Wette). It is just as unwarrant- 
able, however, to explain away, by any exegetical expedient, this rock which 
followed them, and which was Christ. The attempts which have been made 
with this view run directly counter to the plain meaning of the words ; e.g. 
the interpretation of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, 
Lightfoot, Billroth, al. (which dates from Theodore of Mopsuestia), that the 
rock means here what came from it, the water (!), which, they hold, followed 
the people and prefigured Christ (jv). That jv denotes here significabat (so too 
Augustine, Vatablus, Salmasius, Bengel, Loesner, a/.), is a purely arbitrary 
assumption, seeing that Paul neither says éori, nor riroc jv, or the like, nor 
even indicates in any way in the context a typico-allegorical reference. This 
applies also against what Ch, F. Fritzsche has in his Nova Opuse. p. 261 : 
“¢ The rock in the wilderness was a rock of blessing, strength, and life-giving 
for the Jews, and thusit prefigures Christ,” etc. Paul does not say anything 
of the sort ; it is simply his expositors who insert it on their own authority. 
Baur, too, does violence to the apostle’s words (comp. his newt. Theol. p.. 
193), by asserting that Paul speaks of Christ as the rvevu. rétpa only in so 
far as he saw a type which had reference to Christ in the rock that followed 
the Israelites, according to the allegoric interpretation which he put upon 
it.’ See, in opposition to this, Riibiger, Christol. Paul. p. 31 f. ; Weiss, 
bibl. Theol. p. 819. The ordinary exposition comes nearer to the truth, but 
fails to reach it in this respect, that it does not keep firm enough hold of 
the statement, that ‘‘ that rock was Christ,” and so of its identity with 
Him, but takes Christ to be the Rock only in an ideal and figurative sense, 
regarding Him as different from the rock from which the water flowed, but 
as the author of its supply. So, in substance, Chrysostom,? Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Melanchthon, Cornelius & Lapide, and many others, among 


1 Baur is wholly unwarranted in taking ¢notv ov yap dv Kal mpd TovTov avéBrugev, add’ 
mvevuatikos, ver. 3f., in the sense of typical érépa Tis wéTpa mvevmaTiKh Td TaV eipyaceTo, 
or allegorically significant. His appeal to  rovtéoriv 6 Xpiords 6 mapwy avTots TavTaXov 
Rev. xi. 8 and Barnab. 10 is irrelevant. Kal ravrTa Yavm_aToupyav, 

2 ov yap TAS TéTpas HYcts Td Vdwp Hdcer 


R22 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
whom are Flatt, Kling in the Stud. wnd Krit. 1839, p. 835 ; Osiander, 
Neander, Hofmann.’ (&’) 

Ver. 5. ‘Obx év roic rieloow] not with the greater part of them. A. tragical 
litotes. Caleb and Joshua alone reached the land of promise. Num. xiv. 
30. —KateotpoOycav] were struck down.? Comp. Num. xiv. 16, 29. Their 
dying in the wilderness (some by a violent, some by a natural death) is here 
vividly portrayed, in accordance with Num. xiv., as death by the hand of 
God (Herod. viil. 58, ix. 76 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 64; Judith vii. 14 ; 2 Macc. 
v. 26). Comp. also Heb. iu. 17. 

Ver. 6. The typical reference of what is adduced in vy. 1-5 to the Chris- 
tians : These things (while they so fell out) became types of us, t.e. historical 
transactions of the O. T., guided and shaped by God, and designed by Him 
figuratively to represent the corresponding relation and experience on the 
part of Christians. See regarding rizoc, on Rom. v. 14. — éyev#Onoav| The 
plural is by attraction from the predicate riza. See Kiihner, II. p. 53 f. ; 
Kriiger, § lxiii. 6. Hofmann (comp. vi. 11) takes the Israelites as the sub- 
ject : ‘* They became this as types of us ;” but the recurrence of the raira in 
ver. 11 should have been enough of itself to preclude such a view. — ém- 
Ouunr. kaxov| quite general in its reference : desirers (Herod. vii. 6 ; Dem. 
661 ult., and often in Plato) of evil things (Rom. i. 30). To restrict it to the 
‘¢ Corinthios epulatores” (Grotius) is arbitrary ; for it is equally so to con- 
fine the xafog Kaxeivor éref. which follows solely (Riickert, de Wette, 
Osiander, Neander), or particularly (Hofmann), to the desire of the Israelites 
Sor flesh (Num. xi. 4), whereas in truth the words refer generally to the 
evil lusts which they manifested so often and in so many ways upon their 
journey, that particular desire not excluded. 

Ver. 7. There: follows now upon this general warning the first of four 
special ones against sins, to which the ércfuyeiv caxév might very easily lead. 
‘*Bligit, quod maxime Corinthiis congruebat,” Calvin. — ydé] also in par- 
ticular do not. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 314 [E. T. 366]. The rep- 
etitions of u7dé which follow, toé, from ver. 8 to ver. 10 are also negatived, 
but in continuance of the special prohibitions. — yiveofe] in the second per- 


1 Comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 171: *‘ The rock 
from which the water flowed was a natu- 
ral one, and stood fast in its own place; 
but the true Rock that really gave the 
water was the Os IY (Isa. xxx. 29), 
was Jehovah, who went with Israel.” By 
not calling the Rock God, but Christ, the 
apostle points forward, as it were (accord- 
ing to Hofmann), to the application which 
he is about to make of the words, namely, 
to the cup which Christ gives us to drink. 
But Paul’s words are so simple, clear, and 
definite, that it is impossible to get off 
by any quid pro quo. For the rest, it isto 
be observed that in this passage, as in the 
previous one, where the crossing of the sea 
is taken as a typical prefiguration of bap- 
tism, we have doubtless a Rabbinical pro- 


cess of thought on the part of the apostle, 
which, as such, is not to be measured by 
the taste of our day, so that this unvar- 
nished exegetical, conception of it might be 
set down as something ‘* absurd,” as is 
done by Hofmann. The Rabbinical culture 
of his time, under which the apostle grew 
up, was not done away with by the fact of 
his becoming the vessel of divine grace, 
revelation, and power. Comp. Gal. iv. 22 ff. 
Our passage has nothing whatever to do 
with Isa. xxx. 29, where men goup into the 
temple to Jehovah, the Rock of Israel. It 
is of importance, however, in connection 
with Paul’s doctrine regarding the pre-ex- 
istence of Christ and its accordance with 
the doctrine of the Logos. 

2 [Literally, strewed as corpses.—T. W. C.] 


CHAP Xi .854 9. R20 


son, because of the special danger to which his readers, from their circum- 
stances, were exposed. Comp. on ver. 10. — eidwAoddrpar] What Paul means 
is the indirect idolatry involved in partaking of the heathen sacrificial feasts. 
Comp. on v. 11. This is clear from the quotation which he goes on to 
make (¢ayeiv «x. meiv). Comp. vv. 14, 20, 21. The passage cited is Ex. 
xxxii. 6 according to the LXX.; it describes the sacrificial feast after the 
sacrifice offered to the golden calf. The rvéc aitév, four times repeated, 
certain of them, notwithstanding there were very many (although not all), 
brings out all the more forcibly the offences over-against the greatness of 
the penal judgments, Comp. on Rom. iil. 3. — raifew] to be merry. This 
comprised dancing, as we may gather from Ex. xxxii. 19, and from ancient 
customs generally at sacrificial feasts ; but to make this the thing specially 
referred to here (Hom. Od. viii. 251 ; Hesiod, Scwt. 277; Pindar, Ol. xili. 
123) does not harmonize with the more general meaning of pris? in the 
original text. To understand the phrase as indicating wnchastity (Tertull. 
de jejun. 6) is contrary to Ex. xxxii, 18, 19, and Philo, de vit. Mos. 3, pp. 
677 D, 694 A. 

Ver. 8. ’Exépvevoay] Num. xxv. 1 ff. —eixooe tpeic] According to Num. 
xxv. 9, there were 24,000. So too Philo, de vit. Mos. 1, p. 694 A; de 
JSortit. p. 742 D ; and the Rabbins in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 205 ; also Jose- 
phus, Antt. iv. 6.12. A slip of memory on the apostle’s part, (L") as might 
easily take place, so that there is no need of supposing a variation in the 
tradition (Bengel, Pott), or an error in his copy of the LXX. (Ewald). 
Among the arbitrary attempts at reconciliation which have been made are 
the following : that Paul narrates only what happened on one day, Moses 
what happened on two (Grotius) ; that Moses gives the maximum, Paul the 
minimum (Calvin, Bengel) ; that 23,000 fell v2 divina; and 1000 gladio ze- 
lotarum (Krebs, after Bernard and Havercamp on Josephus, loc. cit.) ; that 
Paul states merely what befell the tribe at Simeon (Michaelis). Cajetanus 
and Surenhusius would have us read ¢ixooc réooapec, as, in point of fact, is 
given in a few codd., but manifestly by way of correction. Osiander too 
leans to this ; comp. Valckenaer. 

Ver. 9. ’Exzecp. | Stronger than the simple verb (¢o prove to the full), Matt. 
iv. 7; Luke x. 25. Comp. the classic éxecpdoua (Herod. iii. 135 ; Plat. 
ep. 18, p. 362 E). To try the Lord, WWV-DS8 1D), means generally, to let it 
come to the point whether He will show Himself to be God; in this case : 
whether He will punish (*‘ qaousque itura sit ejus patientia,” Grotius). See 
in general, Wetstein, ad Matt. iv.'7. What special kind of trying Paul has 
here in view, appears from xafd¢ x.7.A., where the reference is to the people 
after their deliverance losing heart over the contrast between their position 
in the wilderness and the pleasures of Egypt. See Num. xxi. 4-6. The 
readers therefore could not fail to understand that what the apostle meant 
was discontent on their part with their present Christian position, as involv- 
ing so much renunciation of sensual pleasures formerly indulged in. How 

1The Kvptos is God in Num. xxi. 4 ff. had no reason to refer it to Christ as the 


Paul’s readers, whose familiarity with the Adyos aoapxos (from which comes the Lecep- 
history in question is taken for granted, ta Xprorov), 


aA. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


many, forgetting the blessings of their spiritual deliverance, might look 
back with a discontented longing to the license of the past! It is a 
common opinion that Paul designates their participation in the sacrificial . 
Feasts as atempting of God (comp. ver. 22, where, however, the connection 
is totally different, and rdv kipiov does not apply to God at all). So Bill- 
roth, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier ;_ but this is quite at variance 
with the context, because not in keeping with the historical events indicated 
by the xa@oc cai x.7.A., and familiar to the readers. The context equally 
forbids the interpretations of Chrysostom and Theophylact : the craving for 
wonders ; Theodoret, the speaking with tongues; Grotius, the conduct of 
the schismatics ; and Michaelis, that of the anti-Pauline party. — éreipacar | 
namely, av7év, not in an absolute sense (Winer, Reiche). — aréAAvvro] see 
the critical rema:ks. The imperfect lays the stress on the continuous devel- 
opment of what occurred, and thus placesit in the foreground of the his- 
toric picture. See Kiihner, IT. p. 74. As to id with ardAd., see Valcke- : 
naer, p. 261. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IL. p. 880. 

Ver. 10. Nor murmur, etc. ; expression of contwmacious discontent (Matt. 
xx. 11; Phil. i. 14), without right of reason. Against whom ? is discovered 
from the narrative, to which Paul here refers us. That this is to be found 
not in Num. xiv. (the more common view), but in Num. xvi. 41, 49 (Cal- 
vin, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Ewald), is clear, in the first place, 
because arma2. b7d 7. dA08p. denotes a violent death, which does not tally 
with Num. xiv. ; and, in the second, because rivé¢ aitév cannot apply to 
the whole people (except Caleb and Joshua), which it would have to do ac- 
cording to Num. xiv. If, however, what Paul has here in view is the mur- 
muring against Moses and Aaron after the death of Korah and his company 
(Num. xvi. 41, 49), then his prohibition must refer not to discontent against 
God (which was, moreover, referred to already in ver. 9), but only to mur- 
muring against the divinely commissioned teachers (Paul, Apollos, and others), 
who, in their position and authoritative exercise of discipline, corresponded 
to the type of Moses and Aaron as the theocratic leaders and teachers of the 
rebellious people. And it is for this reason that he uses the second person 
here, although the first both precedes and follows it. Amidst the self-con- 
ceit and frivolity which were so rife at Corinth, and under the influences 
of the party-spirit that prevailed, there could not fail to be perverse dispo- 
sitions of the kind indicated, which would find abundant expression. 
Comp. the evils prevalent in the same community at a later date, against 
which Clement contends in his epistle. — azdAA. td r. dA08p.] namely, the 
14,700, whose destruction (Num. xvi. 46 ff.) is ascribed to the plague (*|212) 
of God. Paul defines this more closely as wrought by the Destroyer (Hesy- — 
chius, Avyedv), who is the executor of the divine plague, just as in Ex. xii. 
23 the MW executes the plagu@ (413) of God,—this personal rendering 
of Mw (according to others, pernicies), which was the traditional one 
from the earliest times among Jews and Christians alike, being followed by 
the apostle also. The dA0Apevric (6 dA00pebwv, Ex. xii. 23 ; Heb. xi. 28 ; Wisd. . 
xviii. 25. Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 ; Isa. xxxvil. 36 ; Job xxxiii. 22, al. » Acts 
xii. 23) is the angel commissioned by God to carry out the slaughter ; and he 


CHAP. x., 11. R20 
again is neither to be conceived of as an evil angel (a conception still foreign 
to the old Hebrew theology in general ; see also1 Chron. xxi. 12 ; 2 Chron. 
xxxil. 21; 2 Macc. xv. 22, 23), nor rationalized into a pestilence. The 
Rabbinical doctrine of the Nin Non (see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. 
I. p. 854 ff.) developed itself out of the Hebrew idea. — OAofpctw, and the 
words formed from it, belong to the Alexandrian Greek. See Bleek on 
Heb. Il. p. 809. But the reading dAeOp., although in itself more correct, is 
very weakly attested here. 

Ver. 11. Taira] These facts, referred to in ver. 6 ff. — rumixic] in a typi- 
cal fashion,’ in such a way that, as they fell out, a typical character, a pre- 
dictive reference, impressed itself upon them. Eisenmenger (II. p. 159 f., 
264, 801) gives passages from the Rabbins in support of the principle of the 
interconnection of the whole theocratic history : ‘‘ Quicquid evenit patribus, 
signum filiis,’—a principle generally correct according to the idea of the 
Gerd woipa. It is only among the Fathers that we find ruriade and rumxdc¢ 
used anywhere else in this sense (it is otherwise in Plutarch, Mor. p. 442 
C). —ovvéBarvor| brings out the progressive development of the events ; the 
aorist éypddy simply states the fact.? Comp. on ver. 4, and Matthiae, p. 
1117. The dé contrasts éypddy «.r.4. with what precedes it, expressing 
“quod novum quid accedit, oppositionem quandam,” Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 845: ‘‘that it was written, again, was for,” etc. — rpd¢ vovieciay judr] 
Sor our admonition (comp. on iv. 14). That is to say, when we are tempted 
to the same sins, then should the thought of those facts that happened 
turikac¢, warn us not to bring down upon ourselves like judgments by like 
offences. As to the later form, vovfecia in place of vovféryore and vovberia, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512. —éi¢ od¢ «.7.4.] is not opposed, as Hofmann 
would have it, to the beginning of Israel’s history, to which the transactions 
in question belong, which is neither conveyed by the text nor in itself his- 
torically correct (for the beginning of that history lics in the days of the 
patriarchs) ; but it gives point to the warning by reminding the readers how 
nigh at hand the day was of retributive decision. Ta rédn tov aidvor is identi- 
cal with 7 cvyrédeca tov aidvor, Heb. ix. 26, the concrete ra ré47 (the ends) 
being put here for the abstract ovvréAeca (consummation). In other words, 
upon the supposition of the Parousia being close at hand, the last times of 
the world were now come ; the aiévec, which had their commencement at its 
beginning, were now running out their final course. The plural expression 
7a téAn, here used, corresponds to the conception of a plurality of periods in 
the world’s history, whose common consummation should carry with it the 
Jinal issues of them all.* With the Parousia the aidve¢ érepyduevor (see on 


1The Recepta riro. would mean: These 
things happened to them @s types ; comp. 
ver. 6. Hofmann takes radra 6é rvrot as an 
independent clause. But whatan arbitrary 
disruption of the sentence this would be! 
And how thoroughly self-evident and void 
of significance the cvvéBatvov éxeivors Would 
in that case be! 

2([The former verb (plural) relates to the 


events in detail ; the latter (singular) to the 
record as a whole.—T. W. C.] 

3 Weiss, in his dib/. Theol. p. 301, gives a 
different interpretation, making ra réAy the 
goals. Each of the past aiéves, according 
to his view, served as a preparation for the 
time of full maturity. But Paul always uses 
tédos in the sense of end (in 1 Tim. i. 5 it is 
otherwise) ;and this, too, is the most natural 


226 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
/ 

Eph. ii. 7) begin to run. What is implied by the plural is not one thing 
running alongside of another, in particular, not the time of Israel and the 
time of the Gentiles (Hofmann), but the succession of the world-periods, one 
coming after another. So always, where aidvec occurs in a temporal sense. 
—kKarthvtnxev| They have reached to us, 7.e. have fallen upon our lifetime, and 
are how here. The aidvec are conceived of as stretching themselves out, as 
it were, in space. Comp. xiv. 36. 

Ver. 12. ‘Qore] Wherefore, warned by these instances from the O. T. — 
éotdvat| whosoever thinks that he stands, i.e. is jirm and seewre (Rom. v. 2, 
and comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 1) in the Christian life, namely, in strength of 
faith, virtue, etc. Comp. Rom. xiv. 4. — Bieréto, uy réoy] points to the 
moral fall, whereby a man comes to live and act in an unchristian way. 
The greater, in any case, the self-confidence, the greater the danger of such 
a fall. And how much must the moral illusions abroad at Corinth have 
made this warning needful! Others understand the continuance in, or 
falling from, @ state of grace to be meant (see Calvin, Bengel, Osiander). 
But all the admonitions, from ver. 6 onwards (see, too, ver. 14), have a 
direct reference to falling into sins, the consequence of which is a falling from 
grace so as to come under the divine dépy# (comp. Gal. v. 4). 

Ver. 13. Encouragement to this Breréto py réan. ‘* Your temptations, as 
you know, have not hitherto gone beyond your strength, neither will they, 
through the faithfulness of God, do so in the future.” Riickert follows 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, Zachariae, and others, 
in his interpretation : ‘‘ You are not yet out of danger ; the temptations 
which have hitherto assailed you were only human ones, and you have not 
withstood them over-well (?) ; there may come others greater and more 
grievous.” Similarly Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald ; so 
that, according to this view, Paul seeks first of all to humble, and then, 
from rioré¢ onwards, to encourage,—a connecting thought, however, being 
interpolated between the two clauses (‘‘sed nunc major tentatio imminet,” 
Bengel). — recpacudc| The context makes no special mention of sufferings and 
persecutions (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Camerarius, Grotius, Ewald, al.), but 
of incitements to sin in general, as things which, if not overcome, instead of 
being a discipline to the man exposed to them, will bring about his xirrev ; 
but suffering is ¢ncluded among the rest in virtue of the moral dangers which 
it involves. Pott restricts the reference too much (comp. also Hofmann) : 
‘‘tentatio quae per invitationem ad convivia illa vobis accidit,” which is 
inadmissible in view of the general terms employed in ver. 12 ; the particular 
application follows only in ver. 14. — eiAn¢ev] marks the continuance of the 
fact of its not having taken them. It has not done so, and does not now. 
This use of AawBdvevv, in reference to fortunes, states, etc., which seize upon 
men, is very common in the classics (Thue. ii. 42 ; Pind. OJ. i. 180 ; Xen. 
Symp. i. 15, and often in Homer). Comp. Luke v. 26, vii. 16 ; Wisd. xi. 
12; Bar. vi. 5. —avdpérwvoc] i.e. viribus humanis accommodatus, voix imép 6 


meaning here, where he is speaking of the the same as in mAjpwua tav katpov, Eph. i. 
lapse of periods of time. The thought is 9f. . ue 


CHAP. X., 14. R27 


Séivaratdv3pworoc. See Pollux, iii. 131. The fact that in the second clause of 
the verse this phrase has jrép 6 déivacde and rod dtvacdat breveyneiy Corre- 
sponding to it, militates against the rendering : ‘‘ not of superhuman origin” 
(comp. Plato, Alc. i. p. 103 A; Phaedr. p. 259 D; Rep. p. 497 C, 492 B), 
z4.e. either not from the devil (Melanchthon, Piscator, Vorstius, a/.), or not 
Jrom God (Olshausen, who finds an allusion in the second clause to the dolo- 
res Messiae). Comp. ov avdpurivy xaxia, Polyb. 1. 67. 6, and the like ; Plato, 
Prot. p. 344 ©, Orat. p. 488 C 3 ov avdpurivng duvduewc, Thuc. vi. 78. 2 ; 
dca avd puro: (sc. dSivavrat), Plato, Rep. p. 467 C 3 peilov } Kar’ dvOpurov, Soph. 
Oecd. Col. 604. Chrysostom : avdpéruvoc, tovréate pixpdc, Bpayds, cbupetpoc. — 
miotéc| for if He allowed them to be tempted beyond their powers, He 
would then be unfaithful to them as regards His having called them to the 
Messianic salvation, which now, in the case supposed, it would be impossi- 
ble for them to reach. (m')— dc] in the sense of érz oiroc, like the German ‘‘ er 
der.” Comp. Bernhardy, p. 291. “Ocye would be still more emphatic. —é 
dvvacde| what you are in a position to bear. The context shows the more 
special meaning. Comp. onili. 2. — aaa rohoes x.7.A.] but will with the (then 
existing) temptation make also the issue, t.e. not the one without the other. 
God is therefore conceived of here as He who makes the temptation, i.e. 
brings about the circumstances and situations which give rise to it (comp. 
on Matt. vi. 13), but, previously, as He who lets men be tempted. The two 
things, according to Paul’s view of the divine agency in the world, are in 
substance the same ; the God who allows the thing to be is He also who 
brings it to pass. Hence the two modes of conception may be used inter- 
changeably, as here, without contradiction. Comp. on Rom. i. 24.—r. 
ExBaow| the issue (egressum, Wisd. ii. 17, vill. 9, xi. 16 ; Hom. Od. v. 410 ; 
Xen. Anab, iv. 1. 20, iv. 2.1; Polyb. iv. 64. 5) from the temptation, so 
that one escapes out of it morally free (comp. éx re:pacpod pbecdar, 2 Pet. il. 
9) ; similarly Eur. Med. 279, éxBaotc atnc. Theophylact gives the sense with 
substantial correctness, tiv araAdayjy Tod recpacuod ; but it is unsuitable to 
make, as he does, the ody x.r.A. refer to coincidence in time (dua Th éreASeiv 
iuiv Tov mecpacudv) ; So also Hofmann. Bengel puts it well: ‘‘«xai, etiam, 
indivulso nexu.” — tov divaodat érev.| does not say wherein the issue might 
consist (of being able to bear the temptation ; comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
844), for the divacda: irev. is nO ékBaore (the taking it so is illogical) ; but it 
is the genitive of design: in order that you may be able to bear it (the tempta- 
tion). Were it not that God gave the éGaore along with the repacyéc, the 
latter would be too heavy for you ; you would not be able to bear up under 
it, but would be crushed altogether. But that is not His will. That tuac 
should be supplied to div. irev., is clear of itself from what precedes. See 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 10. 

Ver. 14. Acérep] for this very reason (viii. 13), to wit, in order that you 
may not withdraw from this saving guidance of the faithful God, and de- 
prive yourselves of it ; idolatry would separate you from God. Comp. ver. 
22. And they would make themselves indirectly guilty of idolatry by par- 
taking of the sacrificial feasts. See vv. 7, 20 f. As respects ¢ebyecv ard, 
fugiendo discedere a, see on Matt. iii. 7. Rickert would draw a distinction 


228 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


here to the effect that, had the verb been joined with the accusative (vi. 18), 
it would have indicated that the readers were already involved in idolatrous 
worship ; but this is untenable (2 Tim. ii. 22 ; Wisd. i. 5 ; Plato, Legg. i. 
p. 636 E ; Soph. Phil. 637, Oed. R. 355), being a confusion of the phrase in 
question with gebyew éx (Xen. Anad. i. 2.18 ; Tob. i. 18). The precise meaning 
here must be sought in the context, which certainly gives us only the idea of 
the danger being at hand (ver. 7). 

Ver. 15 ff. Paul has just been forbidding his readers to participate in the 
sacrificial feasts, on the ground of its being idolatry. This he now explains by 
the analogy of the holy fellowship, into which the Lord’s Supper (vv. 15-17), 
and participation in the Israelitish sacrifices (ver. 18), respectively brought 
those who partook of them. It does not follow from his second illustration 
that the idols were gods, but that they were demons, with whom his readers 
should have no fellowship ; one could not partake both of Christ’s table and 
of the table of demons (vv. 19-22). The former excludes the latter. 

Ver. 15. ‘Q¢ gpovivorc] i.e. to those of whom I take for granted that they 
are intelligent ; é¢ indicates the mode of contemplation, the aspect under 
which he regards his readers in saying to them, etc. Comp. iii. 1; 2 Cor. 
vi. 13, al. See Bernhardy, p. 383. — Aéyo refers to xpivare ip. 6 d. (comp. 
vii. 12), and 6 gym points to what follows in vv. 16-18. ‘‘As to intelligent 
men (who can judge aright), I say: judge ye what I affirm.” On the differ- 
ence between Aéyw and dui, comp. Rom. iii. 8 ; Herod. iii. 85 ; Xen. Apol. 
18, Anab. i. 7. 18, vi. 6. 16, i. 1. 14; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. Il. p. 906. — 
The emphasis is on tyei¢ 5 your own judgment shall decide. 

Ver. 16. Td rorf#piov] It is most natural to take this as in the accusative, 
after the analogy of the second clause of the verse (against Riickert). 
Respecting the attractio inversa, as in Matt. xxi. 42, see Bornemann, Schol. 
in Luc. p. 16 f. ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Kiihner, II. p. 
512. This Greek fashion of ‘‘ trajection” is of such common occurrence, 
that it is a piece of pure arbitrariness to infer, with Hofmann, from the 
accusative here that the action of blessing and breaking, of which the ele- 
ments are the objects, makes them the xo:vwvia. — Paul names the eup jirst, 
not because at the sacrificial feasts men thought less about food than about 
a pleasant meeting primarily for enjoying wine (they came for eating and 
drinking), but because he means to speak at more length about the bread, 
and in connection with it, especially to discuss the Israelitic partaking of 
the sacrifices, as it suited his theme of the meat offered to idols. For this reason 
he begins here by disposing briefly of the point concerning the cup. In 
chap. xi. he does otherwise, because not regarding the matter there 
from this special point of view. — r#¢ ebAoyiac| genit. qualit., i.e. the ewp over 
which the blessing is spoken, namely, when the wine contained in it is 
expressly consecrated by prayer to the sacred use of the Lord’s Supper.’ It 


1 Who had to officiate at thisconsecration? Justin Martyr’s time (Apo. i. 65) it fell to the 
Every Christian man probably might do so mpoeotws, but so that the president is con 
at that time, when the arrangements of ceived as representing and acting in fellow- 
church-life as regards public worship were ship with the congregation. See Ritschl, 
as yet so little reduced to fixed order. In altkathol. K. p.365f. The plurals in the pas- 


CHA Pik. snip 229 
is a mistake to understand ric eiAoy. actively : the cup which brings blessing 
(Flatt, Olshausen, Kling), as the more detailed explanations which follow 
are sufficient of themselves to prove. They equally forbid the explanation 
of Schulz : the cup of praise’ (comp. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendm. p. 128). 
Neither should the phrase be viewed as a terminus technicus borrowed from 
the Jewish liturgy, and answering to the 12727 DD. See on Matt. xxvi. 
27, and Riickert, Abendm. p. 219 f. —6 eidAoyoiyev] an epexegesis giving 
additional solemnity to the statement: which we bless, consecrate with 
prayer, when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Comp. Mark viii. 7 ; Luke 
ix. 16 ; 1 Sam. ix. 18. Evdoy. in its literal sense must not be confounded 
with eiyapior. (Erasmus, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Beza : ‘‘ quod cum gratia- 
rum actione sumimus”’), although the prayer was, in point of fact, a thanksgiv- 
ing prayer in accordance with Christ’s example, xi. 24 f. As to the difference 
between the two words, comp. on xiv. 16. — ody? xovv. T. aiv. T. X. gore] This 
is aptly explained by Grotius (after Melanchthon and others) : ‘‘ covvwviav 
vocat id, per quod fit ipsa communio.” The cup, 7.e. its contents as these 
are presented and partaken of, is the medium of this fellowship ; it is real- 
ézed in the partaking.? Comp. i. 30; John xii. 25, xvii. 3; Rodatz in 
Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift, 1844, 1, p. 181 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 31. The 
sense therefore is: Is not communion with the blood of Christ established 
through partaking of the cup?* ’Hori never means anything else than est 
(never significat) ; itis the copula of existence ; whether this, however, be 
actual or symbolical (or allegorical) existence, the context alone must decide. 
Here it must necessarily have the former sense (against Billroth), for the 
mere significance of a participation would go no way towards proving the 
proposition that eating meat offered to idols was idolatry ; and as, therefore, 
in ver. 18. it is not the significance, but the fact of the participation, that is 


expressed (comp. ver. 20), so also must it of necessity be here. 


What sort 


of a participation it might be, was of no importance in the present connec- 


sage before us are the utterance of the 
Christian consciousness of fellowship, to which 
it makes no difference who, in each sepa- 
rate case, may be the ministerial organ of 
the fellowship. Kahnis explains them from 
the amen of the congregation (Justin, doc. 
cit.) ; but that itself was primarily the time- 
hallowed expression of that consciousness. 

1 With excessive arbitrariness Hofmann 
(comp. his Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 225 f.) insists 
on taking evAoyia otherwise than evAoyotpev; 
the former, in the sense of an ascription of 
praise, with God as its subject ; the latter, 
in the sense of consecrating the cup. The 
consecration, according to him, makes the 
difference between it and the Passover cup. 
But the said difference could not have been 
expressed by Paul in a more unsuitable 
or perplexing way than by repeating the 
same word. 

2 Hofmann-too comes to this in substance 
after all, although he tries to escape from 


it, taking cotvwvia as “ the matter of fact of a 
joint (2) participancy,” and then opining that 
the apostle has in view an eating of the 
bread and drinking of the wine, which by 
means of this corporeal process, and with- 
out its being possible to eat and drink 
merely bread and wine, makes us joint-par- 
takers of the body and blood of Christ. In 
support of the meaning thus assigned to 
ko.vwvia, Hofmann appeals inappropriately 
COD IAG ee COL Xi, 13%) 1 Johns). 8: sone 
participancy would be ovykow.wvia ; comp. 
avykotvwrvos, ix. 23; Rom. xi. 17; Phil. i. 7. 

3 Itis plain from vy. 18, 20, 21, that cocvwvia 
is here neither communication, apportioning 
(Luther, a/., including Kling, Billroth), 
which it never means in the N. T. (see on 
Rom. xy. 26), nor consortium, societas (Eras- 
mus: ‘‘ quod pariter sanguine Christi sumus 
redemti,”’ comp. Zwingli). See also Kahnis, 
Abendm. p. 1382 f. 


230 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

tion, forthe apostle is dealing here simply with the xowwvia in itself, not 
with its nature, which differed according to the different analogies adduced 
(vv. 18, 20). (x) It cannot therefore be gathered from this passage 
whether he was thinking of some kind of real, possibly even material con- 
nection of those eating and drinking in the Supper with the body and blood 
of Christ,’ or, on the other hand, of an émward union realized in the believing 
consciousness, consisting therefore in the spiritual contact whereby the 
believer, who partakes of the elements, is conscious to himself in so partak- 
ing of being connected by saving appropriation with the body and blood of 
reconciliation. But we see clearly from xi. 24 f. that Paul could only mean 
the latter, since at the institution of the Supper the body of Christ was not 
yet slain, and His blood still flowed in His veins.* See, besides, on Matt. 
xxvi. 26. Again, if the glorified state of His body, i.e. the caya rie ddEn¢ 
avrov (Phil. iii. 21), set in only with His ascension, and if, when He insti- 
tuted the Supper, His body was still but the céya rij¢ capkdg avtov, which 
soon after died upon the cross for reconciliation (Col. i. 22), while, never- 
theless, the first Lord’s Supper, dispensed by Jesus himsel/, must have 
carried with it the whole specific essence of the sacred ordinance—that essence 
depending precisely upon the future crucifiaion of the body and outpouring of 
the blood,—then the apostle cannot have in view the glorified® coua and 
diva as being given and partaken of through the mediwm of the bread and 
wine. Otherwise, we should have to attribute to Paul the extravagant con- 
ception,—which is, however, equally out of harmony with the institution 
itself and without shadow of warrant in the apostle’s words, nay, at vari- 
ance with what he says in xv. 50,—that, at the last Supper, Jesus had His 
pneumatic body already at His disposal to dispense as He would (Olshausen, 
Hofmann), or that a momentary glorification, like that on the Mount, took 


1¥or the rest, it is plain enough from the 
correlative cpa that the atua 7. X. denotes 
the dlood—not, as D. Schulz still maintains, 
the bloody death—of Christ (which, consid- 
ered én itself, it might indeed symbolize, but 
could not be-called. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
p. 274; Kahnis, Abendm. p. 60 f.). 

2When Rodatz objects that an ideal 
union with the actual body slain and blood 
shed is a logical contradiction, he overlooks 
the fact that the material sphere is not be- 
yond the reach of inward appropriation. 
Spiritual communion may have reference 
to a material object, without excluding a 
symbolic process in which “‘signatum non 
cum signo sed nobiscum unitur’’ (Vossius, 
de baptismo, p. 11). Comp. Kahnis, Dogmat. 
I. 621: ‘‘ Bread and wine form not a mere 
symbol, but a sign, which is at the same 
time medium,’ see also III. p. 489. The 
important alteration in the Latin Confess. 
Aug. Art. X. of 1540, points in the same di- 
rection. 

3 Riickert also (Abendm. p. 224 ff.) holds 
that Paul conceived the body and blood in 


the Supper as glorified ; that, in virtue of 
the consecration, the participant partakes 
of the glorified blood, etc. Riickert, of 
course, discards all questions as to mode in 
connection with this view which he ascribes 
to the apostle, but which he himself consid- 
ers a baseless one (p. 242). His mistake lies 
in deducing too much from mvevpatiKor; 
which is neither in ver. 3 nor anywhere 
else in the N. T. the opposite of material, 
but of natural (1 Pet. ii. 5 not excluded) 3 
and the wvedua to which mvevpartckos refers is 
always (except Eph. vi. 18, where it is the 
diabolic spirit-world that is spoken of) the 
Divine rvedua, In the case of gifts which 
are mvevuatixa, it is this mvevua who is 
always the agent; so with the supply of 
manna and water in the _ wilderness, 
and so, too, with the bread and wine 
received in the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch 
as in this Bpoyza and mova the commun- 
ion of the body and blood of Christ is reals 
ized, which does not take place when 
bread and wine are partaken of in the ordi- 
nary, natural way. , 


CHAP. 9X. 716; 231 
place at the time of instituting the Supper, as Kahnis formerly held ; but 
see now his Dogmat. I. p. 622; and comp. also, on the other side, Ebrard, 
Dogma vom heilig. Abendm. I. p. 109 f. Either, therefore, the apostle re- 
garded the xowwvia of Christ’s body and blood as being different before His 
glorification from what it was afterwards, or it was in his eyes, both before 
and after, the inward spiritual fellowship realized by the inner man through 
the medium of the symbol partaken of, as an appropriation of the work of 
atonement consummated through means of His body and blood, and conse- 
quently asa real life-fellowship, other than which, indeed, he could not 
conceive it as realized when the Supper was instituted. Comp. Keim in the 
Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 90 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Against 
this xorvevia subjectively realized in the devout fecling of the believer, and 
objectively established by the divine institution of the ordinance itself, it is 
objected that the phrase, ‘‘ fellowship of the body and blood,” expresses at 
any rate an interpenetration of Christ’s body and the bread (according to the 
Lutheran synecdoche ; comp. Kahnis’ former view in his Abendm. p. 186, 
also Hofmann, p. 219). But this objection asserts too much, and therefore 
proves nothing, seeing that the fellowship with Christ’s body and blood 
realized by means of the symbol also corresponds to the notion of fellowship, 
and that all the more, because this eating and drinking of the elements 
essentially is the specific medium of the deep, inward, real, and living xoworia ; 
hence, too, the ‘‘calix communionis” cannot be possibly a figurata loquutio. 
This last point we maintain against Calvin, who, while insisting that ‘‘non 
tollatur jigurae veritas,” and also that the thing itself is there, namely, that 
‘non minus sanguinis communionem anima percipiat, quam ore vinum 
bibimus,” still explains away the xocvevia of the blood of Christ to the 
effect, ‘‘dum simul omnes nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vivat in nobis et 
nos in ipso.” — 6v «Adpuev| There was no necd to repeat here that the bread, 
too, was hallowed by a prayer of thanksgiving, after the cup had been 
already so carefully described as a cup consecrated for the Supper. Instead 
of doing so, Paul enriches his representation by mention of the other essen- 
tial symbolic action with the bread ; comp. xi. 24. That the breaking of the 
bread, however, was itself the consecration (Riickert), the narrative of the 
institution will not allow us to assume. — row cuatro tr. X.| in the strict, 
not in the figurative sense, as Stroth, Rosenmiiller, Schulthess, and, others : 
‘“declaramus nos esse membra corporis Christi, ¢.e. societatis Christianae,” 
comp. also Baur, neut. Theol. p. 201. This interpretation is at variance 
with the first clause, for which the meaning of the Supper as first instituted 
forbids such a figurative explanation (in opposition to Zwingli’) ; nor can 
this be justified by ver. 17 ; for 


1 Zwingli, in his Respon. ad Bugenh., ex- 
plainsit thus:‘‘Poculum gratiarum actio- 
nis, quo gratias agimus, quid quaeso, aliud 
est quam nos ipsi? Nos enim quid aliud 
sumus nisi ipsa communio,ipse coetus et 
populus, consortium et sodalitas sanguinis 
Christi? h. e. ille ipse populus, qui sanguine 
Christi ablutus est.’? The most thorough 


historical development of Zwingli’s doc- 
trine is that given by Dieckhoff in his evang. 
Abendmahislehre im Reformationszeitalter, I. 
p. 428 ff. Riickert remarks with justice 
that Zwingli has here lost his footing on 
evangelical ground altogether. But Cal- 
vin, too, has lost it, inasmuch as he makes 
everything turn upon the spiritual recep- 


232 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Ver. 17 confirms the statement that the bread is acommunion of the body 
of Christ. or it is one bread ; one body are we, the many, i.e. for through 
one bread being eaten in the Supper, we Christians, although as individuals we 
are many, form together one (ethical) body. This union into one body through 
participation on the one bread could not take place unless this bread were 
xowwvia of the body of Christ, which is just that which produces the one 
body—that which constitutes the many into this unity. The proof advan- 
ces ab effectu (which participating in the one bread in and of itself could 
not have) ad causam (which can only lie in this, that this bread is the com- 
munion of Christ’s body). The argument’ does not imply a logical conver- 
sion (as Rodatz objects) ; but either the effect or the cause might be posited 
Srom the Christian consciousness as premiss, according as the case required. 
See a similar process of reasoning ab effectu ad causam in xii. 12. Comp. also 
Luke vii. 47. According to this, 6rz is just the since, because (for), so com- 
mon in argument, and there is no need whatever to substitute ydp for it 
(Hofmann’s objection) ; éori is to be supplied after cic dproc ; and the two | 
clauses are placed side by side asyndetically so as to make the passage 
‘‘alacrior et nervosior” (Dissen, ad Pind. Hee. Il. p. 276), and, in particular, 
to bring out with more emphasis the idea of unity (cig . . . &v) (comp. Acts 
xxv. 12). The oi ydp ravrec x.t.A. which follows leaves us no room to doubt 
how the asyndeton should logically be filled up (and therefore also) ; for 
this last clause of the verse excludes the possibility of our assuming a mere 
relation of comparison (as there is one bread, so are we one body ; comp. 
Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, al.). The oi yap rdvrec, too, 
forbids our supplying éoyuév after dproc (Zwingli, Piscator, Mosheim, Stolz, 
Schrader, comp. Ewald) ; for these words indicate the presence of another 
conception, inasmuch as, repeating the idea conveyed in el¢ dproc, they 
thereby show that that ei¢ dpro¢ was said of literal bread. This holds against 
Olshausen also, who discovers here the church as being ‘‘ the bread of life for 
the world!” Other expositors take 6ri (comp. xii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 6) as intro- 
ducing a protasis, and éy o. «.7.A. as being the apodosis : ‘‘ because it is one 
bread, therefore are we, the many, one body.” ? In that case either we should 
have a further exposition about the bread (Hofmann), no sign of which, 
however, follows ; or else this whole thought would be purely parentheti- 
cal, a practical conclusion being drawn in passing from what had just been 
stated. But how remote from the connection would such a side-thought 
be! And would not Paul have required to interpose an ody, or some such 
word, after the 67, in order to avoid misunderstanding ? Interpreters would 


tion of the glorified body, z.e. upon receiving 
the vivifying power which flows from it, 
whereas the words of institution have to do 
simply with that body, which was to be cru- 
cified for the atonement and with its fellow- 
ship. As to Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper, 
see, besides Henry and Stihelin, Kahnis, II. 
p. 494 ff. 

1Comp. Bengel: ‘‘Probat poculum et 
panem esse communionem. Nam panis per 


se non facit, ut vescentes sint unum corpus, 
sed panis id facit quatenus est communio,” 
etc. 

2Flatt, Riickert, Kahnis, Maier, Hofmann, 
following the Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, 
Beza, Bengel, a. Riickert, however, has 
since assented (Abendm. p. 229 ff.) to the 
modifications proposed by Rodatz, of which 
mention is presently to be made. 


CHAP. x., 18. 233 


not have betaken themselves to a device so foreign to the scope of the pas- 
sage, had they not too hastily assumed that ver. 17 contained no explana- 
tion at all of what preceded it (Riickert). Rodatz agrees with the rest in 
rendering : ‘‘because there is one bread, therefore are we, the many, one 
body,” but makes this not a subordinate thought brought in by the way, 
but an essentially new point in the argument ; he does this, however, by 
supplying after év cdua, ‘‘ with Christ the Head” (comp. also van Hengel, 
Annot. p. 167 f.), and finding the progress of the thought in the words sup- 
plied. But in this way the very point on which all turned would be left 
to be filled in, which is quite unwarrantable ; Paul would have needed to 
write év cua aitov tie Kedadjc, or something to that effect, in order to be 
understood. —oi roAdoi] correlative to the év céua (comp. v. 15, 19): the 
many, who are fellow-participants in the Lord’s Supper, the Christian mul- 
titude. The very same, viewed, however, in the aspect of their collective 
aggregate, not, as here, of their multitudinousness, are oi ravrec, the whole ; 
comp. Rom. vy. 15, 18. The wnity of dread is not to be understood numeri- 
cally (Grotius, who, from that point of view, lays stress upon its size), but 
qualitatwely, as one and the same bread of the Supper. The thought of the 
bread having become a unity out of many separate grains of corn is foreign 
to the connection, although insisted on by many expositors, such as Chrys- 
ostom, Augustine, Erasmus, Calovius, al. —ék tov évdg aprov peréy. is inter- 
preted by some as if there were no é« : ‘‘since we areall partakers of one 
bread” (Luther). This is contrary to the linguistic usage, for peréyeww is 
joined with the genitive (ver. 21, 1x. 12) or accusative (Bernhardy, p. 149), 
but never with é« ; and the assumption that Paul, in using é«, was thinking 
of the verb éofiew (xi. 28), is altogether arbitrary. The linguistically cor- 
rect rendering is : for we all have a share from the one bread, so that in ana- 
lyzing the passage we have to supply, according to a well-known usage 
(Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 138 [E. T. 158]), the indefinite indication of a 
part, ri or rivdc, before éx tov évdg dptov. Hofmann, too, gives the correct 
partitive sense to the expression. The article before évé¢ points back to 
what has been already said. — 

Ver. 18. Another’ analogue to prove that participation in the sacrificial 
feasts isidolatry. — xara capxa} without the link of the article, because ’Iap. 
kata odpka is regarded as a single idea. Comp. on Rom. ix. 3. Israel after a 
purely human sort means the born Israelites, the Jews, as distinguished from 
the "Iop. xara rvevua (Rom. ii. 28 f.; Gal. iv. 29 ; comp. Gal. vi. 16), which 
the Christians are, in virtue of their fellowship of life with Christ the prom- 
ised orépya of Abraham. It was very natural for the apostle to add xara 
capka, seeing that he had just been speaking of the sacred ordinance of the 
Christians. — As to the Jewish sacrificial feasts, see Michaelis, Mos. R. IT. 
pp. 282, 346 f., IV. § 189. — Kxowavot roi @voiact.] This is the theocratic 
bond of participation, whereby the man stands bound to the sacrificial altar, 
who eats of the sacrifice belong to it as such. The Israelite who refused to 


1 Which does not therefore by any means Gemeindegottesd. p. 195 ; comp. also Kahnis, 
place the Lord’s Supper in the light of a Abendm. p. 30). Seeagainst this view, Hof- 
sacrificial feast (Olshausen, MHarnack, mann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 282. 


234 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


eat of the flesh of the sacrifice as such, would thereby practically declare that 
he had nothing to do with the altar, but stood aloof from the sphere of theo- 
cratic connection with it. The man, on the other hand, who ate a portion 
of the flesh offered upon the altar, gave proof of the religious relation in 
which he stood to the altar itself. The question which may be asked, Why did 
not Paul write Oeo0% instead of Ovoracr. ? is not to be answered by affirming 
that he could not ascribe the xovv. rod Oecd eioi to the "Iap. x. cdpxa (Rickert, 
Abendm. p. 217, and Neander ; but could he not in truth, according to 
Rom. ix. 4 f., xi. 1, say this of the people of God ?), or by asserting that 
he could not well have attributed so high an effect to the sacrificial service 
(de Wette ; but why should he not, seeing he does not specify any partic- 
ular Zind of fellowship with God ?). But the true reply is this: the so:- 
vovia Ocov would have been here much too vague and remote a conception; 
for that fellowship belonged to the Jew already in his national capacity as 
one of the people of God generally, even apart from partaking of the sacri- 
fices. It was by the latter that he showed the narrower and more specific 
relation of worship in which he stood to God, namely, the peculiarly sacred 
covwvia (Ex. xx. 21 ff.) roi @vovaorypiov. Hence the inappropriateness of the 
view taken by Riickert and many others, that Paul leaves the inference 
open: ‘‘and hence, too, with God,” and of that of Rodatz, that the altar is 
put for the offering. | | 

Vv. 19, 20. By these two analogues, vv. 16-18, the apostle has now jus- 
tified his warning given above against the sacrificial feasts as a warning 
against idolatry (ver. 14). But from the case of the Jewish sacrificial eating 
last adduced, his readers might easily draw the inference : ‘‘ You declare, 
then, the idolatrous offerings and the idols to be what the heathen count 
them ?”? For whereas the apostle adduced the xowwvia of the Jewish @voiac- 
thp.ov, and that as an analogue of the heathen @vocacr#pia, he seemed thereby 
to recognize the xo:vwvia of these too, and consequently also the real divine 
existence of the idols thus adored. He therefore himself puts the possible 
false inference in the shape of a question (ver. 19), and then annuls it in ver. 
20 by adducing the wholly different results to which ver. 18 in reality gives 
rise. The inference, namely, is drawn only from ver. 18, not from vv. 16— 
18 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, al.), as ver. 20 (over, correlative to the 
Ovovactypiov of ver. 18) shows. —ri obv nue ;] what do I maintain then ? namely, 
in following up ver. 18. Upon this way of exciting attention by @ question, 
comp. Dissen, ad Demosth. de cor. p. 34%. Kriiger, Anabd. i. 4. 14. —ri éori] 
is something, i.e. has reality, namely, as eidwid@vtov, so that it is really flesh 
which is consecrated to a god, as the heathen think, and as eidwiov, so that 
it really is a divine being answering to the conception which the heathen 
have of it ; as if, for instance, there were such a being as Jupiter in exist- 
ence, who actually possessed the attributes and so forth ascribed to him by 
the heathen. To accent the words 7 gory (Billroth, Tischendorf, comp. 
Ewald) would give the sense : that any idol-sacrifice (and any idol) exists, in 
the capacity, that is to say, of idol-sacrifice and of idol. Hither rendering 
harmonizes with viii. 4. In opposition to the latter of the two, it must not. 
be said, with Riickert, that gor, would need to come immediately after rz, 


CHAP. X., 19, 20. 235 
for the last place, too, is the seat of emphasis (Kiihner, II. p. 625) ; nor yet, 
with de Wette, that the one half (eidwAdOvrov) is not so suitable, for the con- 
text surely makes it perfectly plain that Paul is not speaking of absolute ex- 
‘istence. But since both renderings are equally good as regards sense and 
expression, we can decide between them only on this ground, that with the 
second the ri would be superfluous, whereas with the first—which, follow- 
ing the Vulgate, is the common one—it has significance, which should give 
it the preference. At the same time, we must not insert any pregnancy of 
meaning like that in ili. 7 (of influence and effect) into the ri, as Hofmann 
does without warrant from the context ; but it is the simple aliquid, the op- 
posite of the non-real, of the non-ens. — aAa’| refers to the negative sense of 
the preceding question. Hence: ‘‘ No ; on the contrary, I maintain,” ete. 
See Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, p. 10 f. — d Oboveww] see the crit- 
ical remarks. The subject is self-evident : the sacrificers (the heathen, who 
sacrifice). Kiihner, II. p. 35 f.—The assertion, again, that the heathen sac- 
rifices are presented to demons and not toa real God (9e@), follows (oiv, in ver. 
19) from the fellowship in which the Jew who ate of the sacrifices stood to 
the altar on which they were offered ; inasmuch as confessedly it was only 
the Jewish AvovacrApiov with its sacrifice that belonged to a real God, and 
consequently the heathen @vocacorfpca and their offerings could not have ref- 
erence to a God, but only to beings of an opposite kind, ¢.e. demons. — 
Saipwoviorc] does not mean idols, false or imaginary gods (Bos, Mosheim, 
Valckenaer, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pott, Neander), 
which is contrary to the uniform usage of the LXX. and the N. T.,’ and 
would, moreover, yield a thought quite out of keeping with the context ; for 
it was the apostle’s aim to point to a connection with an antichristian reality. 
The word means, as always in the N. T., demons, diabolic spirits. That the 
heathen worships guoad eventum (of course not quoad intentionem) were 
offered to devils, was a view derived by all the later Jews with strict logi- 
cal consistency from the premisses of a pure monotheism and its opposite. 
See the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. cvi. 87,—a reminiscence 
of which we have in Paul’s expression here,—Ps. xcv. 5 ; Bar. iv. 7; Tob. 
iii. 8, vi. 14, and the Rabbinical writers quoted in Hisenmenger’s entdeckt. 
Judenth. I. pp. 805 ff., 816 ff. So Paul, too, makes the real existences an- 
swering to the heathen conceptions of the gods, to be demons, which is es- 
sentially connected with the Christian idea that heathendom is the realm of 
the devil ; for, according to this idea, the various individual beings re- 
garded by the heathen as gods can be nothing else but diabolic spirits, who 
collectively make up the whole imperial host of the dpywv tov Kécpuov tobrov 
(Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), who is himself the apyyyéc.”_ Comp. Hahn, Theol. des 


is through its being set apart for the altar. 
If not partaken of in its quality as sacrifi- 
cial meat, it had lost its relation to the de- 
mons, and had become ordinary meat, just 
as Jewish sacrificial flesh, too, retained the 


1 Acts xvii. 18 is uttered by Greeks accord- 
ing to their sense of the word; but in Rey. 
ix. 20 we are to understand demons as 
meant. :; 

2 Mosheim objects that if Paul held this 


belief, he must have pronounced the sacri- 
ficial meat to be positively unclean. But 
it had surely received no character indeledil- 


consecration of the altar only for him eho 
ate it as such. 


236 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

N. Test. I. p. 366 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 279. The ancient church, too, 
followed Paul in remaining true to this idea. See Grotius on this passage. 
Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 421 ff. As to the consistency of this view with that ex- 
pressed in vili. 4, see the remarks on the latter verse. Riickert therefore 
(with Grotius) is wrong in altering the representation to this effect, that ac- 
cording to Paul the demons had ‘‘ given the heathen to believe” that there 
were gods to whom men should sacrifice, in order to obtain for themselves 
under their name divine worship and offerings, and that in so far the sacri- 
fices of the heathen were presented to demons. The LXX. rendering of 
Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. xcv. 5 should of itself have been enough to prevent 
any such paraphrase of the direct dative-relation. — ot 0éAw dé x.t.4.] that I, 
however, do not wish, still dependent upon ér, the reply to ti oiv gy being 
only thus completed. The xovvwrvot¢ points back to xocvwy. in ver. 18. The 
article in tév dau. denotes this class of beings. 

Ver. 21 gives the ground of the foregoing ot OéAw dé bude K.T.2. — ov dbvacbe] 
of moral impossibility. ‘‘ Nihil convenit inter Christum et impios daemo- 
nes ; utrisque serviri simul non potest nisi cum insigni contumelia Christi,” 
Erasmus, Paraph. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 15.— rorfpiov Kupiov] a cup having ref- 
erence to the Lord, t.e. according to ver. 16 : acup which brings into communion 
with Christ. Its analogue is a rorf#piov datuoviov ; the latter was quoad even- 
tum, according to ver. 20, the cup out of which men drank at the sacrificial 
feast, inasmuch as the whole feast, and therefore also the wine used at it, 
even apart from the libation (which Grotius, Munthe, Michaelis, de Wette, 
and others suppose to be meant), made the partakers to be xowvwvod¢ Tav daipov. 
(ver. 20). —tparéln¢e Kupiov| refers to the whole xvpcaxdv deitvov, xi. 20. In- 
stances of yeréyecv with rparéfyc, and like ead may be seen in Loes- 
ner, Obss. p. 288. 

Ver. 22. Or do we provoke the Lord to dale, ? to prove that He will not 
suffer us to set Him on the same level with the demons? The connection is 
this : ‘‘ You cannot, etc., ver. 21, unless it were the case that we Christians were 
people whose business it isto provoke Christ to jealousy.” Hence the indicative, 
which should not be taken as deliberative, with Luther and others, includ- 
ing Pott, Flatt, and Riickert (or would we defy the Lord ?), but : we occupy 
ourselves therewith, are engaged therein. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntaa, p. 370. 
The phrase, tov Képiov, however, should not be referred to God on the 
ground of the allusion undoubtedly made here to Deut. xxxii. 21 (so com- 
monly, as by Ewald, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen), but (as by de 
Wette and Hofmann), on account of ver. 21, to Christ. — py ioxup. x.t.A. | 
we are not surely stronger than He? i.e. we are not surely persons, whom His 
strength, which He would put forth against us to carry out the promptings 
of that jealousy,’ cannot get the better of ? Comp. Job xxxvii. 23. Chrys- 


1 According to Hofmann, Paul means that 
strength, which men must suppose them- 
selves to possess if they are confident that 
they can take part with impunity in the 
sacrificial feasts, whereas Christ can by no 
means endure the sight of such participa- 


tion on their part without becoming jeal- 
ous. But the idea, ‘‘ with impunity,’ would 
be arbitrarily imported into the passage. 
The greater strength, upon this view of it, 
would be in truth the capacity—not existing 
in Christ—to do what was morally impossible 


CHAP. X., 23-25. 200 


ostom already correctly notes the abductio ad absurdum, with which Paul 
winds up this part of his polemic against the eating of sacrificial meat. 

Ver. 23. In connection, however, with this matter also, as with a former 
one, vi. 12, the principle of Christian liberty in things indifferent admitted 
of application, and had no doubt been applied in Corinth itself. Paul 
therefore now proceeds to treat the subject from this purely ethical side, 
introducing the new section without any connective particle (Buttmann, 
neut. Gram. p. 345 [E. T. 403], and enunciating in the first place the afore- 
said principle itself, coupled, however, with its qualifying condition of love. 
Thereafter in ver. 24 he lays down the general maxims arising out of this 
qualification ; and then in vv. 25 ff. the special rules bearing upon the eat- 
ing of meat offered in sacrifice. -—— oixodouei] promotes the Christian life of 
the brethren, viii. 1. Comp. on Rom. xiv. 19. See the counterpart to this 
in Rom. xiv. 13, 15, 20. — As to ovudéper, see on vi. 12. 

Ver. 24. Let no one be striving to satisfy his own interest, but, etc. Comp. 
ver. 83. We must not impair the zdeal, to which this rule gives absolute 
expression (otherwise in Phil. ii. 4), by supplying pdvov and xai, as Grotius 
and others do. See rather Rom. xv. 1f. Even the limitation to the ques- 
tion in hand about sacrificial feasts (Pott), or to the adiaphora in general 
(Billroth, de Wette, Osiander), is unwarranted ; for the special duty of the 
oixodoueiv is included under this quite general rule, the application of which 
to the matter in dispute is not to come till afterwards. — After aAA4 we are 
mentally to supply éxacro¢ from the preceding pydeic. See Bernhardy, p. 
458 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 192 E, Rep. p. 366 C ; Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 392]. 

Ver. 25. On pdkeAdov, shambles, slaughter-house (Varro, de ling. Lat. 4, p. 
30 ; Dio Cass. lxi. 18), see Kypke, II. p. 219. Comp. Plut. Mor. 752 C: 
paxedeia. It passed over into the Rabbinical writings also ; see Drus. in loc. 
— pnoev avaxpiv.| making no investigation (Vulg. interrogantes ; not : condemn- 
ing, as Grotius, Ewald, and others take it, contrary to the meaning of the 
word), z.¢. instituting no inquiry about any of the pieces of meat exposed 
for sale, as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not. The weaker 
Christians, that is to say, were afraid of the possibility (see on viii. 7) of 
their buying sacrificial meat at the flesh-market, because they had not yet 
risen to see that the flesh of the victims when brought to the public mart 
had lost its sacrificial charactcr and had become ordinary meat. They 
would probably, therefore, often enough make anxious inquiries over their 
purchases whether this or that piece might have been offered at the altar or 
not. The stronger believers did not act in this way ; and Paul approves 
their conduct, and enjoins all to do the same. — dud riv ovveidyow] may 
be taken as referring either (1) to pydév avaxpivovrec as to the required mode 
of the wav écfiew : eat all without inquiry, in order that your conscience may 


(ver. 21). Had this, however, beentheapos- ov dvvac%e in ver. 21. According to the 
tle’s meaning, he would have needed, in present order, the meaning of tcxvp. is de- 
order to be logical and intelligible, to re- termined by wapagnAodpuer to be the strength 
verse the order of his clauses, so that icxv- which could make head against that of the 
porepot should have its sense determined by ¢nAos thus aroused, 


238 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


not be troubled, which would be the case if you were told : This is meat of- 
fered to idols (so Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others, following 
Chrysostom) ;* or (2) simply to dvaxpivovrec : without making any inquiry on 
grounds of conscience. So Castalio, Calvin, Beza, al., including Billroth and 
Ewald (the latter, however, rendering : ‘‘condemning nothing on account 
of conscience”). The second method of connection is preferable, both be- 
cause it gives the simplest and most direct sense for did r. cvvetd., and also 
because of the rod yap Kupiov x.7.4. that follows,—words by which Paul de- 
signs to show that, as regards such questions about food, there is really no 
room for holding a court of conscience to decide upon the lawfulness or 
unlawfulness of eating. He means then that his readers should partake 
freely of all flesh sold in the flesh-market, without for conscience’ sake en- 
tering into an inquiry whether any of it had or had not been sacrificial flesh. 
The flesh offered for sale was to be flesh to them, and nothing more ; con- 
science had no call whatever to make any inquiry in the matter ; for the 
earth is the Lord’s, etc., ver. 26. Other interpreters understand the conscience 
of others to be meant: ‘‘ No investigation should be made. . . lest, if it 
turned out to be sacrificial flesh, the conscience of any one should be ren- 
dered uneasy, or be defiled by participation in the food ;” so Riickert, and 
so in substance Vatablus, Bengel, Mosheim, and others, including Flatt, 
Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Maier. Comp. viii. 7, 10. But it 
could occur to none of the apostle’s readers to take r7v ovveid. as referring to 
anything but their own individual conscience. It is otherwise in ver. 28, 
where dv éxeivov Tov unvic. prepares us for the transition to the conscience of 
another person ; while the ovyi tov éavrod in ver. 29 shows that in vv. 25 
and 27 it was just the reader’s own conscience that was meant. 

Ver. 26 supplies the religious ground for the injunction just given : pndév 
dvaxpivey dd 7. ovveldnow, expressed in the words of Ps. xxiv. 1 (comp. Ps. 
1. 12), which Paul here makes his own. (0*) If the earth and its fulness 
belong to God, how should it be necessary before using somewhat of them 
for food to institute an investigation on grounds of conscience, as if such 
gifts of God could be in themselves unholy, or involve sin in the use of 
them ? Comp. 1Tim.iv. 4. For the rest, the passage affords another proof 
that the apostle had now in principle gone beyond the standpoint of the 
decree of Acts xv. Comp. on viii. 1, Remark. — As to zAfpaua, id, quo res 
impletur, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 469 ff. Calvin had already put the 
point well: ‘‘Terra enim, si arboribus, herbis, animalibus et aliis rebus 
careret, esset tanquam domus. . . vacua.” ! 

Ver. 27. Aé] of continuation. In the matter of invitations too the same 
principle holds good, only with the incidental limitation adduced in ver. 28. 
Note the emphasis conveyed by the unusual place of the xaAci, in contrast to 
the 7d év waxéAAw mwAobu. which has been already spoken of. Attention is 
thus called to the fact that a second and a new situation is now to be dis- 
cussed ; before, the reader was in the flesh-market ; now, he is a guest at a 
feast. —It is plain, at the same time, from ver. 28, that what is meant is not 


1“ Vitandum enim est offendiculum, si in his Paraphrase with fine exegetical dis- 
incidat, non accersendum,’’ Erasmus adds cernment. 


CHAP. X., 28. Ro9 


the invitation to festivals in express connection “with sacrifice, but to other 
heathen feasts, at which, however, flesh offered to idols might occur ; for 
in the case of a sacrificial feast the ispdéfurév gore was a matter of course. — 
kat Oédete zop.] ‘‘Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si non eant, ire 
tamen non prohibet,” Grotius. 

Ver. 28. "Hav dé rig x.t.2.] But should it so happen that some one, etc. It 
is clear from this that the host (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler) is not meant, 
otherwise ric (ver. 27) would not be repeated, and besides, dv éxeivov'. . . 
cuveidnowy Would not suit ; but a fellow-guest, and that not a heathen (Chrys- 
ostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, al., including de Wette and Maier, according 
to whom the thing is done maliciously, or to put the Christian to the test’), 
nor a heathen o7 Christian indifferently (Flatt), nor a Jew (Wetstcin), but a 
Christian fellow-guest (Osiander, Neander, al.), who, being himsclf still 
under the influence of the ideas about sacrificial flesh, warns his fellow- 
believer at the table against defilement ; and, moreover, a Gentile Christian 
(see remark on viii. 7), who had somehow learned—perhaps only since 
coming to the house—that the flesh from the altar was to form part of the 
feast.? According to Reiche, in his Comment. crit., we should not seek to 
define the ric more specially, but leave it quite general. But this is at vari- 
ance with the apodosis, which takes for granted that, in the case supposed, 
eating of flesh would involve a want of forbearance towards the pjvvcac, as 
was obviously implied of necessity in the dvd after what had already been 
said in viii. 7-13. The ric, therefore, must be one whose conscience re- 
quired to be spared, consequently neither a heathen nor a Jew, but, in ac- 
cordance with viil. 7 ff., only a brother who was of weak conscience. This 
holds against Hofmann also, who assumes that the case supposed in ver. 28 
might occur just as well if the seller knew the buyer to be a Christian as if 
the host or any of his family knew the guest as such. To leave the ric thus 
indefinite is, besides, the more clearly wrong, seeing that the rule for buy- 
ing meat had been finally disposed of in vv. 25, 26, and cannot extend into 
ver. 28, because ver, 28 is included under the case of the invitation brought 
forward in ver. 27, and this case again is very distinctly separated by the 
very order of the words (see on ver. 27) from that of the purchase in the 
market, ver. 25. — 0d? éxeivov tT. unvic. x. t. ovveid.| for the sake of him who 
made it known, and of conscience, i.e. in order to spare him and not to injure 
conscience. The (dia) rv ovveidyow 18 the refrain which serves to give the 
motive for the rules laid down since ver. 25. To whose conscience this re- 
frain points here, Paul does not yet say (else he would have added airoi), 
but utters again first of all this moral watchword without any more precise 
definition, in order immediately thereafter in ver. 29 to express with the 
special emphasis of contrast the particular reference of its meaning designed 


1 Ewald, too, holds the ris to be a heathen 2 De Wette’s objection, that one of such 
(‘‘the host, as most interpreters take it, or tender conscience would hardly have gone 
very possibly a companion at the table’’), to aheathen festival at all, carries weight 
who gave the hint in a frank and kindly _ only on the supposition of a sacrificial feast 
way, as not expecting that a Christian being meant. 
would partake of meat of that sort. 


240 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

here ;* for in vv. 25, 27, the ovveidyjore had a different meaning. This x. r. 
ovveldnowv, therefore (the xai here being the simple and), carries with it some- 
thing to whet curiosity ; it stands forth in the first place as a sort of riddle, 
so to speak, which is to find its solution in ver. 29.—Regarding pyvtc., see 
on Luke xx. 87. If we imagine the pyvic. to be a heathen, the x. r. cvveid. 
lands us in an insoluble difficulty. For either (1) we should, with Ewald, 
suppose that this heathen’s view of the matter was, that the Christian, being 
warned, would not eat, but, on the other hand, if he did, would be still 
worse than a Jew, converting liberty into licentiousness ; comp. Erasmus, 
Paraphr.* But in that case how very obscurely Paul would have expressed 
himself, especially when in the whole context cvveidyoue means the Christian 
consciousness raising scruples for itself, and that in respect of what was law- 
ful or unlawful! Or (2) we should have, with de Wette, to take ry ovvei- 
dyowv as not the conscience of the pyvtc. at all, but that of third persons 
(weak Christians), which, however, ver. 29 forbids us to do, unless we are 
to regard Paul as writing with excessive awkwardness. —lepé@vrov] used of 
sacrificial flesh also in Plutarch, Mor. p. 729 C. The term is purposely 
chosen here instead of eidwAdfvTov, as a more honourable expression, because 
the words are spoken at table in the presence of heathen. We may be sure 
that this delicate touch is due to no corrector of the text (in opposition to 
de Wette and Reiche). As to the usage of the word in Greek, see Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 159. 

Ver. 29 f. Lest now any one should understand this last dia rt. ovveid. as 
meaning one’s own conscience, as in vv. 25, 27, and so misunderstand Paul 
with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic ex- 
planation, and the reason in which it rests (ivati yap... ver. 30). —ryv 
éavtov| his own individual conscience, his, namely, who was warned. — ov 
érépov] of the other in the case, points back to the tév pyvtcavta, whose con- 
science, too, is afterwards included under dAAne ovverdhoewc. — ivati yap x.T.A. | 
For why is my liberty, etc., that is : for it is absurd that another man’s con- 
science should pronounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (my moral 
freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in 
themselves). This is the reason, why Paul does not mean one’s own con- 
science when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eat- 
ing in the case supposed (ver. 28), but the conscience of the other. One’s 
own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one’s own self-conscious- 
ness, does not need such consideration ; for it remains unaffected by the 
judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without founda- 
tion. The only motive for the abstinence, therefore, is the sparing of the 
conscience of others, not the danger to one’sown. Similarly Bengel ; comp. 
de Wette. The ordinary interpretation ® is that of Chrysostom, taking the 


1 Hence +r. ovveid. should not be under- 
stood of conscience in abstracto (Hofmann : 
“conscience as such, no matter whose,”’ 
although in the jirst place that of the pyvvc.). 

2 Similarly Hofmann also thinks of the 
‘bad opinion of Christianity’? which the 
envvo. first of all, but others as well, would 


have occasion to form, so that the Chris- 
tian’s liberty would be subject to the tribu- 
nal of the moral consciousness of others. 

3 Adopted by Heydenreich, Flatt, Bill- 
roth, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, Maier, 
Ewald, Hofmann ; Osiander is undecided. 


Mahe Xs, Ol, ote 241 


words as the reason for the rule in ver. 28, in the sense of : ‘‘ For why 
should I give occasion to others to pass judgment upon me and to speak evil?” 
or, ‘‘ There is no reason for letting it come to such a pass, that a Christian’s 
liberty should be subjected to that tribunal of the moral consciousness of 
others,” Hofmann. But even apart from the fact that the text says nothing 
about ‘‘ giving occasion,” or ‘‘ letting it come to such a pass,” it 1s a very ar- 
bitrary proceeding to take a clause standing in such a marked way in the 
course of the argument as ovveidnow. . . érépov, and to thrust it aside as some- 
thing only incidentally appended. The connection, too, of the conditional 
protasis with the interrogative ri in the apodosis in ver. 30, makes it clear 
enough that Paul wishes to bring out the absurdity of the relation between 
_the two conceptions. Comp. Rom. ii. 7, a/. Vatablus, Schulz, and Pott 
find here and in ver. 30 the objection of an opponent ‘‘ad infirmitatem fra- 
trum suorum se conformare nolentis.”” The ydp is not inconsistent with this 
(see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 807), but the odv is (ver. 31). — Observe the dif- 
ference between tov érépov (alterius) and diane (alius, i.e. alienae), by which 
any other conscience whatever is meant. — ydpitt] Dative of the manner : 
gratefully, with thanks. Comp. Eph. ii. 5, where, however, the context 
shows that the meaning is by grace ; see in general, Bernhardy, p. 100 f. 
It refers to the grace at meat. By understanding it as beneficio Dei (Beza, 
Grotius, Heydenreich, Hofmann), we bring in Dei entirely without warrant, 
and overlook the parallel ev yapioré, the idea of which is the same with that 
of yapite. — The twice-used éyé is emphatic : I for my part. — wetéyw| The 
object of the verb is self-evident : food and drink. Comp. izép ob. — eiya- 
pior@| ‘‘Gratiarum actio cibum omnem sanctificat, auctoritatem idolorum 
negat, Dei ass¢rit ; 1 Tim. iv. 3 f.; Rom. xiv. 6,” Bengel. 

Vv. 31-33. The section treating expressly of the participation in sacri- 
fices has been brought to a close. There now follow, introduced by oiv 
(which here marks the inference of the general from the particular), some 
additional admonitions, in which are expressed the leading moral rules jor 
all right Christian conduct ; axd tov mxpokeypévov éxi TO KaBoAtkdv é&EHyaye THv 
Tmapaiveow, éva KaAALoTov bpov iv dove, TO Tov Oedv Oia Tavtwr doFalecba, Chrys- 
ostom. — éofiere and rivere are to be understood ina perfectly general sense, 
although the subject which the apostle had been handling hitherto naturally 
suggested the words. Riickert is wrong in holding that it would be more 
correct if éay stood in place of ¢.. The ei is here also ‘‘particula plane 
logica, et quae simpliciter ad cogitationem refertur,” Hermann, ad Viger. 
p- 834. Ti, again, does not stand for the Attic driv (Rickert), but the 
emphasis is on roeite : be it that ye eat, or drink, or do anything ; so that 
the three cases are : eating, drinking, acting. —ndyvra| without any limita- 
tion whatever. ‘‘ Magnum axioma,’”’ Bengel. A Christian’s collective action 
should be directed harmoniously towards the one end of redounding to the 
. glory of God ; for all truly Christian conduct and work is a practical glori- 
fyingofGod. Comp. vi. 20; Eph. i. 12; Phil. i. 11; 1 Pet. iv. 11; John 
xv. 8. Theopposite : Rom. ii. 23. (P’) 

Ver. 32. ’Arpécxoro:] become inoffensive (by constantly increasing com- 
pleteness of Christian virtue). See on Phil. i, 10. — xai ’Iovd. kat "EAA, Kat 


242 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


rT. xd. Tov Ocod] t.e. for non-Christians and for Christians. The former are 
spoken of under two divisions. It is a mistake to suppose, with Beza, that 
the reference is to Jewish and Gentile Christians, which is at variance with 
Kal TH éxkA. Tov Oeov, Since the three repetitions of «ai stand on the same 
level. Hence also it will not do to lay all the emphasis, as Billroth does, 
upon 77 éxxA. tov Ocov, although it is true that it is designated in a signifi- 
cant way, as in xi. 22. The rule is clearly quite a general one ; and it 
places on the same level the three classes with whom intercourse must be 
held without giving any occasion for moral offence. 

Ver. 33. Idvra raow apéoxw] See ix. 19 ff. aavra, in every respect, ix. 25. 
apéoxa, am at the service of. It denotes what takes place on the apostle’s side 
through his endeavour, namely, to be the servant of all, and to beall things 
to all men (ix. 19 ff.); not the result of his endeavour, as if he actually did 
please all (see on Gal. i. 10); for racw apécxecy toy cvuBovAebovta Kal Ta Kowa 
mpattovta adbvatov, Dem. 1481.4. Comp. Rom. xv. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — rap 
ronAav] of the many, the multitude, opposed to the unity of his own single 
person. Comp. on ix. 19; Rom. v. 15 ; and on the idea, Clement, ad Cor. 
I. 48 : Cnreiv 7d Kowwgerec rac, Kai uy 7d éavtod. — iva owldo.| ultimate end, 
for the sake of which he sought their good : that they might be sharers in 
the Messianic salvation. Comp. ix. 22. ‘‘Ex eo dijudicandum utile,” 
Bengel. 


Notes py AMERICAN EprtTor. 


(31) ** In the cloud.” Ver. 2. 


This view agrees with the representation of the cloud in the Rabbinical 
books: ‘*It encompassed the camp of the Israelites as a wall encompasses 
a city.” It is hardly necessary to make mueh of the typical relation upon 
which Meyer insists. The point of similarity which the Apostle makes is that 
the display of God’s power in the cloud and in the sea constituted the people 
disciples of Moses. ‘‘It inaugurated the congregation, and, as it were, bap- 
tized them to him, bound them to serve and follow him.’’ There cannot be 
an allusion to the mode of baptism, because, so far as appears, the people were 
neither immersed nor sprinkled. | 

The privileges mentioned in this verse and the one following are such as 
correspond most nearly with the two Christian sacraments. This is the only 
passage where they are thus brought into juxtaposition. Neander as well as 
Bengel views the fact as a testimony in favour of the Protestant doctrine that 
there are only two sacraments. 


(x!) The Rock was Christ. Ver. 4. 


These words seem specially inserted, Stanley says, in order toimpress upon 
the readers that whatever might be the facts of the history or tradition, the 
only rock present to the Apostle’s mind was the Messiah, just as in the case of 
‘*Christ our passover’’ (ver. 7), for he, in a far higher sense than the rock (tzur) 
at Horeb or the cliff (selah) at Kadesh, was the Rock which was always in 
view with its waters to refresh them at the end no less than at the beginning 


NOTES. 243 


of their long wanderings.—The passage not only affirms the pre-existence of 
our Lord, but identifies Him with the Jehovah of the Old Testament. 


(u') A slip of memory. Ver. 8. 


There is no need of assuming any such slip, because Paul’s number isa 
thousand less than Moses’s. Hodge remarks, with great force: ‘‘ Both state- 
ments are equally correct.’’ Nothing depended upon the precise number. 
Any number between the two amounts may, according to common usage, be 
stated roundly as either the one or the other. The infallibility of the sacred 
writers consists in their saying precisely what the Spirit of God designed they 
should say ; and the Spirit designed that they should speak after the manner 
of men, that they should call the heavens round and the earth flat, and use 
round numbers without intending to be mathematically exact in common 
speech. 


(m!) ‘* God is faithful.’ Ver. 13. 


The author hardly gives the exact sense of these words. Stil! less does 
Stanley, who says that ‘‘ they express, what we often find in the Psalms, that 
the faithfulness or justice of God, rather than His mercy, is the sure ground of 
hope.” Alas for the sinner, however penitent, who appeals to justice. Nor is 
faithfulness = justice. It means, when used in reference to God, His fidelity to 
His promises. He has engaged that those who are given to His Son shall never 
perish (John x. 28, 29). This therefore is their security, and not at all any 
natural firmness of their own, or even the grace infused into them by regenera- 
tion. 


(Nn!) ‘*Communion.’’ Ver. 16. 


The word thus rendered (koinonia) is often used by Paul. Thus we read of 
participation of His Son, 1 Cor. i. 9; of the Spirit, 2 Cor. xiii. 13; of the 
ministry, 2 Cor. viii. 4; of the Gospel, Phil. i. 5; of sufferings, Phil. 111. 5. Of 
course, the nature of the participation depends on the nature of its object. 
Here it cannot mean a literal partaking of the substance of Christ’s body and 
blood, since, not to mention other reasons, when the supper was instituted the 
body of Christ was not yet broken nor His blood shed. It must mean therefore 
the appropriation of the results of His sacrifice, the appropriation being 
mediated by this ordinance when there exists faith in the communicant. 


(01) ** The earth is the Lord’s,”’ etc. Ver. 26. 


This is said by Wetstein to have been the common Jewish form of acknowl- 
edgment and thanksgiving before meals, and probably was the early Eucha- 
ristic blessing, This fact would give the greater weight to the citation of it as 
an evidence that nothing is unclean in itself, or can become polluting if used in 
obedience to the design of its creation. 


(Pp!) ** Do all to the glory of God.” Ver. 31. 


All the special directions given in the preceding discussion are here summed 
up. To make the divine glory the governing motive of our lives introduces 


244 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


order and harmony into all our actions. The sun is then the centre of the 
system. This securesall other ends (such as our own welfare, the good of 
others, etc.) by making them subordinate, while at the same time it exalts the 
soul by placing before it an infinite personal object. Between this and mak- 
ing being in general the end of our actions, there is all the difference that there 
is between the love of Christ and the love of an abstract idea. The one is re- 
ligion, the other is morality (Hodge). 


; 
UMAR. XT. 


ra) 
nse 
or 


CHAPTER XI. 


Ver. 2. adeAgoi] is wanting in A BC &, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Athan. 
Cyr. Bas. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. and Riickert. A natural addition at the 
beginning of anew section. Comp. x. 1, xii. 1, where not a single authority 
omits it. Had it been in the original text here, there was no inducement to 
leave it out. It is otherwise in xv. 31, Rom. xv. 15. — Ver. 5. éavrj¢] airi¢ 
(Lachm.) occursin ACD* F GL &, min. Chrys. Theodoret, al. This is such 
a preponderance of evidence against the Recepta (preferred by Tisch. on the 
authority of BE K Or.), that we must suppose the latter to be an exegetical 
change for the sake of clearness, — Ver. 7. yvv7] AB D* FG &, 73, 118, Dial. 
Isid. Theodoret read 7 }vv7, which is adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Rightly ; 
the article was omitted as in the verse before and after. — Ver. 11. Elz. has the 
two clauses in inverted order (which Rinck defends), but there is decisive evi- 
dence against it. To put the man first seemed more natural. — Ver. 14. 7] is 
wanting in witnesses of decisive authority ; deleted by Lach. Rick. Tisch. 
Added to mark the question. — air} 7 dtowc] ABCDH 8&, min, Damasc. have 
h ovoc av7y (so Lachm. and Tisch.); F G Arm. Tert. simply 7 ¢vowc. In the 
absence of grounds of an internal kind, the weight of evidence on the side of 
7 %. avry should make it be preferred. — Ver. 17. mapayyéAtuv . . . émavd] 
Lachm. Rick. Tisch. read mapayyéAdw . . . éxaivov, on the authority of A B C* 
F G min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Born. Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. 
Bede. This is a preponderance of evidence—all the more that D*, with its 
reading of mapayyéAdo, ov« Exawvo, must here remain out of account. Then, too, 
ver. 2 compared with ver. 22 made ov« éxauvS come most naturally to the copy- 
ist ; so that altogether we must give the preference to Lachmann’s reading, 
which is, besides, the more difficult of the two (against Reiche, who defends 
the Recepta). — Ver. 21. zpodayBaver] A, 46, al. have mpootauB. So Riickert. 
But this is plainly an alteration, because the zp, prae, was not understood. — 
Ver. 22. éraivéow] So also Lachm. on the margin (but with éraivé in the text) 
and Tisch., following AC DE KL 8s, all min., several vss. Chrys. Theodoret. 
The present crept in from its occurrence before and after. — Ver. 24. After eize 
Elz. -has AdBere, ddyere ; but in the face of decisive evidence. Taken from 
Matt. xxvi. 26. — kAduevorv] omitted in A B C* &*, 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. 
In D* we have Opurréuevov ; in Copt. Sahid. Arm, Vulg. al., didduevov. Justly 
suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Mere supplements. 
— Ver. 26, The roiro which stands after ror#piov in Elz. is condemned by de- 
cisive evidence. So, too, the rovrov, which Elz. has after dprov in ver. 27, isa 
later addition. — Ver. 29. avasivc does not occur in A BC &*, 17, Sahid. Aeth. ; 
nor does tov Kvupiov (after c&ua) in these and some other witnesses. Lachm. 
and Tisch. delete them both ; and both are glosses. What reason was there 
for omitting them if in the original ? — Ver. 31. There is a great preponderance 
of evidence in favour of dé instead of yap. The latter is an explanatory altera- 
tion. — Ver. 34. ci] Elz. has ei dé; but there is conclusive evidence for reject- 
ing it. 


246 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ConTENTS.—(1) How requisite it is that women cover their heads in the 
public assemblies for the worship of God,’ vv. 2-16. (2) Regarding the 
abuses of the Agapae, and the right way of celebrating them, vy. 17-384. 

Ver. 1 belongs still to the preceding section.—Become imitators of me. 

Become so, Paul writes, for there was as yet a sad lack of practical evidence 
of this imitation ; see also x. 32 (comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4). — 
xayo] as I also have become an invitator, namely, of Christ. Comp. on Matt. 
xv. 3. Christ as the highest pattern of the spirit described in x. 33. Comp. 
Phil. ii. 4 ff.; Rom. xv. 3; Eph. v. 2 ; Matt. xx. 28. 
_ Ver. 2. Conciliatory: preamble to the sharp correction which follows. — 
dé] 1s simply the autem leading on to a new subject ; hence we are not to 
seek any set. purpose in the similarity of sound between pipyrai and péurvyobe. 
— rdvta| because you are in all respects mindful of me. Riickert’s explana- 
tion : ‘you think on everything that comes from me” (xvi. 14), is needlessly 
far-fetched, seeing that uéuvyuae with the accusative, very frequent in Greek 
writers, does not occur in the N. T., and the absolute raéyvta is common 
enough (ix. 25, x. 32).— Kal calc x.7.2.] and because you hold fast the tra- 
ditions in the way in which I delivered them to you. 'This is the practical 
result of what was stated in the foregoing clause. Tlapadécece might refer 
to doctrine as well as to usages and discipline (comp. Gal. i. 14 ; Col. i1. 
8 ; 2 Thess. 11. 15, i. 6 ; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 803 A ; Polyb. xi. 8. 2) ; but 
the tenor of the following context shows that Paul means here directions 
of the latter sort, which he had given to the Corinthians orally (and also 
perhaps in his lost letter, v. 2). He had, at the foundation of the church 
and afterwards, made various external regulations, and rejoices that, on the 
whole, they had not set these aside, but were holding them fast in accord- 
ance with his directions (karéyere, comp. xv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. iil. 
6, x. 23). As to the connection of rapédwxa . . . mapaddcerc, see Winer, p. 
210 [E. T. 281]. 

Ver. 3. ‘‘ After this general acknowledgment, however, I have still to 
bid you lay to heart the following particular point.” And now, first of all, 
the principle of the succeeding admonition. Respecting OéAw . . . eidévat, 
comp. on x. 1; Col. ii. 1.— ravric avdp.] note the prominent position of 
the word, as also the article before xed.: of every man the Head. That what 
is meant, however, is every Christian man, is self-evident from this first 
clause ; consequently, Paul is not thinking of the general order of creation 
(Hofmann), according to which Christ is the head of all things (Col. i. 16 
f., ii. 10), but -of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based 
upon the work of redemption. Comp. Eph. v. 21 ff. —xe¢aag, from which 
we are not (with Hofmann) to dissociate the conception of an organized 
whole (this would suit in none of the passages where the word occurs, Col. 
ii. 10 included) designates in all the three cases here the proximate, imme- 
diate Head, which is to be specially noted in the second instance, for Christ 


1 Much fruitless trouble has been taken der), now the Christ-party (Olshausen), and 
to connect even the non-veiling of the now the followers of Apollos (Rabiger), who 
women with the state of parties at Corinth. have been represented as the opponents of 
Now it has been the Pauline party (Nean- veiling. 


CHAP. XL, 4. R47 


as head of the church (Col. i. 18 ; Eph. i. 22, iv. 15) is also head of the 
woman (comp. Eph. v. 22 f.). The relation indicated by xed. is that of 
organic subordination, even in the last clause : He to whom Christ is subor- 
dinate is God (comp. iii. 23, xv. 28, viii. 6 ; Col. i. 15 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; and see 
Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 ff.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, 
that Christ in His hwman nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, 
al.), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to 
(Billroth), but—which is exactly what the argument demands, and what 
the two first clauses give us—the objective and, notwithstanding His essen- 
tial equality with God (Phil. 1. 6), necessary subordination of the Son to 
the Father in the divine economy of redemption.’ Much polemic discus- 
sion as to the misuse of this passage by the Arians and others may be found 
in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact. — Gal. iii. 28, indeed, shows 
that the distinction of the sexes is done away in Christ (in the spiritual 
sphere of the Christian life) ; but this ideal equality of sex as little does 
away with the empirical subordination in marriage as with differences of 
rank in other earthly relations, e.g. of masters and servants. — xed. dé X. 6 
Oedc¢| The gradation of rank rises up to the supreme Head over all, who is 
the Head of the man also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all 
the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks 
as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head cov- 
ered, see ver. 7 ; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women 
under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of 
the men. 

Ver. 4. First inference from the aforesaid gradation of rank.—This infer- 
ence is a plea of privilege for the men, which was but to prepare the way for 
the censure next to be passed upon the women. Had Paul meant to cor- 
rect the men because they had prayed or preached as prophets at Corinth 
with their heads covered (Chrysostom and many of the older commenta- 
tors ; see against this view, Bengel, and especially Storr, Opuse. II. p. 283), 
he would have gone into the matter more in detail, as he does in what fol- 
lows respecting the women. —xpocevy.| of praying aloud in the public 
assemblies. For that Paul is giving instructions for the sphere of church-life, 
not for family worship (Hofmann), is quite clear from the rpodyrebew added 
here and in ver. 5, which does not suit the idea of the private devotions of 
a husband and wife, like the cyoddlew tH mpocevym in vil. 5, but always 
means the public use for general edification of the yapioua referred to, name- 
ly, that of apocalyptic utterance (Acts ii. 17 f., xix. 6, xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xill. 
and xiv. ; Matt. vii. 22). Moreover, vv. 5 f. and 10 presuppose publicity ; 
as indeed @ priort we might assume that Paul would not have prescribed so 
earnestly a specific costume for the head with a view only to the family edifi- 
cation of a man and his wife. It was precisely in the necessity of avoiding 


1 Melanchthon puts it well: ‘‘Deus est arcanae essentiae, sed ministerii.’—Even 
eaput Christi, non de essentia dicitur, sed the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged 
de ministeriis. Filius mediator accipit min- in this ministerium, and finally delivers up 
isterium a consilio divinitatis, sicut saepe . the kingdom to the Father. See xv. 28. 
inquit: Pater misit me. Fit hic mentio non 


248 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


public occasion of offence that such precepts could alone find ground enough 
to justify them ; they were not designed by the liberal-minded apostle to 
infringe upon the freedom of a woman’s dress at home. How can any one 
believe that he meant that when a wife desired, in the retirement of her 
own house, to pray with her husband (and how often in a moment might 
an occasion for doing so arise !), she must on no account satisfy this relig- 
ious craving without first of all putting on her repi3éAaov, and that, if she 
failed to do so, she stamped herself as a harlot (ver. 5 f.) !— To take xpo- 
cevy. aS equivalent to yAdcoac Aadeiv (Baur) is not justified by xiv. 13, 
although speaking with tongues may have occurred in connection with pub- 
lic prayer by women. — rpogyr.] See on xii. 10. The force of the partici- 
ples is : Every man, when he prays or speaks as a prophet, while he has, etc. 
— Kara xed. Eywr| se. ti. See Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 36. Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p. 127 [E. T. 146]. Having (something) down from the head, i.e. with a 
head covering. The Jewish men prayed with the head covered, nay, even with 
a veil (Tallith) before the face. See Lightfoot, Horae, p. 210 f. Michac- 
lis, Anm. p. 244 f. Hellenic usage again required that the head should 
be bare on sacred occasions (Grotius on ver. 2; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. 
§ 36. 18 f.), while the Romans veiled themselves at sacrifices (Serv. ad Aen. 
ili. 407 ; Dougt. Anal. IL. p. 116). The Hellenic usage had naturally be- 
come the prevalent one in the Hellenic churches, and had also commended 
itself to the discriminating eye of the apostle of the Gentiles as so entirely 
in accordance with the divinely appointed position of the man (ver. 3), that 
for the man to cover his head seemed to him to cast dishonour on that posi- 
tion. — katacy. tiv Ked. aitot| So, with the spiritus lenis, aitod should be 
written, from the standpoint of the speaker, consequently without any re- 
flex reference (his own head), which the context does not suggest. The 
emphasis of the predicate lies rather on karasoybver, as also in ver. 5. Every 
man, when he prays, etc., dishonowrs his head. In what respect he does so, 
ver. 3 has already clearly indicated, namely (and this meets Baur’s objec- 
tion to the apostle’s argument, that the duty of being veiled should attach 
to the man also from his dependence, ver. 3), inasmuch as he cannot repre- 
sent any submission to human authority by a veil on his head without there- 
by sacrificing its dignity. His head ought to show toall (and its being 
uncovered is the sign of this) that no man, but, on the contrary, Christ, 
and through Him God Himself, is Head (Lord) of the man. We are to 
understand, therefore, rv xepadgv avtov quite simply like kara kedadrge, of the 
bodily head;? not, with Oecumenius, Theophylact (doubtful), Calvin, Calo- 
vius, and others, including Heydenreich, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
Maier, Hofmann, of Christ, which is not required by ver. 3, and is posi- 
tively forbidden by vv. 5, 6, 14, which take for granted also, as respects the 
man, the similar conception of the xedad4, namely, in the literal sense, This 
holds also against the double sense which Wolf, Billroth, and Olshausen 
assume the passage to bear, understanding it to refer to the literal head and 
to Christ as well. 


1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald, Neander. 


CHAP. XI., 5. 249 


Ver. 5. A second inference of an opposite kind from ver. 3, namely, with 
respect to the women. — Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the 
part of the women are assumed here asallowed. In xiv. 34, on the contrary, 
silence is imposed upon them ; comp. also 1 Tim. ii. 12, where they are 
forbidden to teach. This seeming contradiction between the passages dis- 
* appears, however, if we take into account that in chap. xiv. it is the public 
assembly of the congregation, the whole ixxancia, that is spoken of (vv. 4, 5, 12, 
16, 19, 23, 26 ff., 33). There is no sign of such being the case in the pas- 
sage before us. What the apostle therefore has in his eye here, where he 
does not forbid the zpocetyeoha: 7) tpodyrebery of the women, and at the same 
time cannot mean family worship simply (see on ver. 4), must be smaller 
meetings for devotion in the congregation, more limited circles assembled 
for worship, such as fall under the category of a church in the house (xvi. 19 ; 
Rom. xvi. 5 ; Col. iv. 15 ; Philem. 2). Since the subject here discussed, as 
we may infer from its peculiar character, must have been brought under the 
notice of the apostle for his decision by the Corinthians themselves in their 
letter, his readers would understand both what kind of meetings were 
meant as those in which women might pray and speak as prophetesses, and 
also that the instruction now given was not abrogated again by the ‘‘ taceat 
mulier in ecclesia.” The latter would, however, be the case, and the teach- 
ing of this passage would be aimless and groundless, if Paul were here only 
postponing for a little the prohibition in xiv. 34, in order, first of all, pro- 
visionally to censure and correct a mere external abuse in connection with a 
thing which was yet to be treated as wholly unallowable (against my own 
former view). It is perfectly arbitrary to say, with Grotius, that in xiv. 34 
we must understand as an exception to the rule : ‘‘nisi speciale Dei man- 
datum habeant.” — dxaraxadizrtw| Polyb. xv. 27. 2. As to the dative, see 
Winer, p. 203 [E. T. 271]. —7?v edad. aitice|—see the critical remarks— 
is, like r. xed. avrovd in ver. 4, to be understood of the literal head. A woman 
when praying was to honour her head by having a sign upon it of the 
authority of her husband, which was done by having it covered ; otherwise 
she dishonoured her head by dressing not like a married wife, from whose 
head-dress one can see that her husband is her head (lord), but like a loose 
woman, with whose shorn head the wncovered one is on a par. — év yap éore 
«.t.4.] for she is nothing else, nothing better, than she who is shorn. As 
the long tresses of the head were counted a womanly adornment among Jews 
and Gentiles, so the hair shorn off was a sign either of mourning (Deut. xxi. 
12 ; Homer, Od. iv. 198, xxiv. 46 ; Eurip. Or. 458; Hermann, Privatalterth. 
§ xxxix. 28) or of shamelessness (Elsner, Obss. p. 118), and was even the 
penalty of an adulteress (Wetstein im loc.). What Paul means to say then 
is: a woman praying with uncovered head stands in the eye of public 
Opinion, guided as it is by appearances, on just the same level with her who 
has the shorn hair of a courtesan. —év x. 70 ai76] emphatic: wnum idemque. 
See instances in Kypke, II. p. 220. The subject to this is raoa ywv7 x.7.2., 
not the appearing uncovered, so that strictly it ought to have been ro 
éEvpjoba (Billroth), And the neuter is used, because the subject is regarded 
asa gencral conception. Comp. iii.8. Respecting the dative, see Kiihner, 


250 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


IT. p. 244; Kruger, § xlviii. 14. 9.— The form fvpdw has less authority in 
Attic writters than gupéw. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 205. 


Remarx.—The evil, which Paul here rebukes with such sharpness and de- 
cision, must have broken out after the apostle had left Corinth ; had he been 
present, he would not have allowed it to emerge. It arose probably from an 
unseemly extension of the principle of Christian liberty, occasioned by the 
fact of women partaking in the special gifts of the Spirit, ver. 4, and doubtless 
under the influence of the greater laxity of Hellenic ideas about female dress. 
The letter from the Corinthians, when referring to the way in which the apos- 
tle’s instructions were acted upon at Corinth (ver. 2), must have contained an 
inquiry put to him upon this particular point (comp. on ver. 5). The fact that 
Paul makes no allusion to virgins here proves that they were not involved in the 
wrong practice, although Tertullian (de virginib. veland.) unwarrantably applies 
our passage to them also. : 


Ver. 6 gives the ground of éy éorv «.7.4., ver. 5. That ground is, that the 
step from not being covered to being shorn is only what consistency demands, 
while the dishonour again implied in being shorn requires that the woman 
should be covered; consequently, to be uncovered lies by no means midway 
between being shorn and being covered as a thing indifferent, but falls under 
the same moral category as being shorn. For when a woman puts on no covering, 
when she has once become so shameless, then she should have herself shorn. too 
(in addition). A demand for logical consistency (Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391}) 
serving only to make them feel the absurdity of this unseemly emancipation 
from restraint in public prayer and speaking (for ver. 5 shows that these 
rules cannot be general ones, against Hofmann). To understand it simply 
as a permission, does not suit the conclusion; comp. on the contrary 
Katakadurréolw. —Td kelp. % Evpacba] ‘Plus est radi (¢vp.) quam tonderi,” 
Grotius. Comp. Valckenaer. vp. means to shave, with the razor (£upéy). 
The two words occur together in Mic. i. 16, LXX. Note the absence of any 
repetition of the article in connection with the double description of the 
one unseemly thing. 

Vv. 7-9. Tap] introduces the grounding of the xataxadurrécbw, consequently 
a second ground for the proposition under discussion (the first being vv. 
38-6). The argument sets out again (comp. ver. 3) e contrario. —oik ddethec] 
does not mean: he is not bound, which, as ver. 3 shows, would not be enough; 
but: he ought not, etc., in contrast to the woman who ought (vv. 5, 10). 
Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. —eixdv x. dé€a «.7.4.] The obligation to pray, etc., 
with the head covered would be inconsistent with this high dignity, because 
to cover the head is a sign of submission to human power, ver. 10. A man 
as such (avfp) is the image of God (Gen. i. 26 f.), inasmuch as he, being 
Adam’s representative, has dominion over the earth. Other elements of 
what constitutes the image of God are not, according to the context, taken 
into account here, nor are the ecclesiastical definitions of it. He is also the 
glory of God, inasmuch as, being the image of God, he, in his appearance as 
man, practically represents on earth in ahuman way the majesty of God as 
aruler. Riickert, following older interpreters (given in Wolf), holds that 


CHAP, XI., 10. 251 


défa is meant here as the rendering of FI, Gen. i. 26; as also the LXX., 
in Num. xii. 8, Ps. xvii. 15, translates TI by dééa. But had Paul wished 
to convey the meaning of 31, a passage so important and so familiar as 
Gen. i. 26 would certainly have suggested to him the word used there by 
the LXX., éuoiwore. Adga corresponds simply to the Hebrew 1133, — Paul 
describes only the man as being the image and déga of God; for he has in his 
eye the relation of marriage, in which rule is conferred on the man alone. 
The woman accordingly has, in harmony’with the whole connection of the 
passage, to appear simply as défa avdpéc, inasmuch, namely, as her whole 
wedded dignity, the high position of being spouse of the man, proceeds 
from the man and is held in obedience to him; so that the woman does not 
carry an independent glory of her own, an idia déga, but the majesty of the 
man reflects itself in her, passing over to her mediately and, as it were, by 
derivation. (Q*) Grotius compares her happily to the moon as ‘‘ lumen 
minus sole.” This exposition of dé&a avdpéc is the only one which suits the 
context, and corresponds in conception to the preceding défa Oeot, without 
at the same time anticipating what is next said in vv. 8, 9. The conception 
of the dé£a, which is Ocot in case of the man and dvdpéc¢ in that of the woman, 
is determined by the idea of the ordo conjugalis, not by that of humanity 
(Hofmann) originally realized in the man but passing thence into a deriva- 
tive realization in the woman. — Paul omits elxév in the woman’s case, not 
because he refused to recognize the divine image in her (except in an im- 
mediate sense), but because he felt rightly that, in view of the distinction of 
sex, the word would be unsuitable (comp. de Wette), and would also convey 
too much, considering the subordinate position of the woman in marriage. 
— Ver. 8. For there is not such a thing as man from woman, etc., but the re- 
lation of the two as respects being in the converse. — Ver. 9. The ydp here 
is subordinate to that in ver. 8: ‘‘for there was not created a man for the 
woman’s sake, but conversely.” This is the concrete historical establishment, 
from the narrative of their creation, of the relation between the two sexes, 
which had been generally stated in ver. 8; in giving it, Paul, with Gen. ii. 18 
in his view, does not bring in é« again, but dd, which, however, considering 
how familiar the history was, throws no doubt upon the genuineness of the 
éx. In «at yap the cat (which has the force of even indeed, Hartung, I. p. 
135) belongs to ov éxtic#y. The present genetic relation of the two sexes, 
ver. 8, began as early as the creation of the first pair. (R’) 

Ver. 10. Aca rotro|] namely, because the relation of the woman to the man 
is such as has been indicated in vy. 7-9. — é£ovoiav éyew éri tic xed.| to have 
@ power, i.e. the sign of a power (to wit, as the context shows, of her husband’s 
power, under which she stands), wpon her head ; by which the apostle means 
a covering for the head.* So Chrysostom,” Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, with the majority both of ancient and modern commentators, including 


1 Luther’s gloss is: ‘‘ That is the veilor And onver.7 he says: As the man ought 
covering, by which one may see that sheis to pray uncovered in token of his apx7, so 
under her husband’s authority, Gen. iii. for the woman it is a mark of presumption 
16.57 TO pH ExELv TA TUUBOAG THs VrOoTAyis. 

2"Apa To kadvmrerdat UTotayis Kai é£oucias. 


‘ 


252 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


van Hengel, Annot. p. 175 ff.; Liicke in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1828, p. 571 f., 
Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier, 
Weiss, Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 465 f.; comp. Diisterdieck in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 707 ff. Just as in Diodor. Sic. i. 47, in the 
phrase éyovcay tpeig Baotreiac éxi tHe Ked., the context shows beyond a doubt 
that Bac. means symbols of one’s own power (diadems), so here the connection 
justifies the use of éfovcia to denote the sign of another’s power ; the phrase 
thus simply having its proper reference brought out, and by no means being 
twisted into an opposite meaning, as Hofmann objects. Comp. also the or- 
naments of the Egyptian priests, which, as being symbols of truth, bore the 
name of adjfeva, Diod. Sic. i. 48. 77; Ael. V. H. xiv. 84. Schleusner ex- 
plains éfovc. as a token of the honour (of the married women over the single). 
But both the context (ver. 9) and the literal meaning of é¢ovoia are against 
this. Bengel and Schrader make it a sign of authority to speak in public. 
But the whole connection points to the authority of the husband over the 
wife. There is not a word in the whole passage about the potestas orandi, 
etc., nor of its being granted by the husband (Schrader). Hagenbach’s view 
(Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 401) is also contrary to the context, seeing that we 
have previously dua rov dvdpa ; he understands éoveia as a mark of descent. 
Paul, he holds, formed the word upon the analogy of rapovoia x.t.A.,—a View 
that does not even leave to the term its lexical meaning, which was surely 
familiar enough to the apostle and his readers. Other expositors make 
éSovolia directly to signify a veil (Michaelis, Schulz), to establish which they 
have appealed in the most arbitrary way to the help of Hebrew words 
(Cappellus, Clericus, Hammond, Semler, Ernesti). Hitzig again, in the 
theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 129 ff., gives out the term to be a Jewish- Greek one, 
derived from é£ icov ; because the veil had, he maintains, two overhanging ~ 
halves which balanced each other, in front and behind. But what is fatal 
to every attempt of this kind is that é£ovcia, power, is so very familiar a 
word, and suits perfectly well here in this its ordinary sense, while, as the 
name of a veil, it would be entirely without trace and without analogy in 
Greek. As for the derivation from é& icov, that is simply an etymological 
impossibility. Other interpreters still assume that éfovc. means here not a 
sign of power, but power itself. So, in various preposterous ways, earlier 
commentators cited by Wolf ; and so more recently Kypke and Pott. The 
former puts a comma after éfovoia, and explains the clause : ‘‘ propterea 
mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (comp. ver. 4) in capite habeat.” 
But the sense of dgeiAevy tr would rather have required izaxogv in place of 
éfovciav. Pott again (in the Gétting. Weihnachtsprogr. 1831, p. 22 ff.) ren- 
ders it : ‘‘mulierem oportet servare jus seu potestatem in caput suum, sc. 
eo, quod illud velo obtegat.” Not inconsistent with linguistic usage (Rev. 
xi. 6, xx. 6, xiv. 18 ; comp. Luke xix. 17), but all the more so with the 
context, since what ver. 9 states is just that the woman has xo power at all 
over herself, and jor that very reason ought to wear a veil. Hofmann, too, 
rejects the symbolical explanation of éovcia, and finds the metaphorical ele- 
ment simply in the local import of the phrase éi xegadge (comparing it with 
such passages as Acts xviii. 6, where, however, the idea is wholly different 


CHAP. XI., 10. 253 
in kind). He makes the thought to be: the woman must have a power 
upon or over her head, because she must be subject to such a power. In 
that case what would be meant would be her husband’s power, which she 
must have over her. But the question in hand was not at all about anything 
so general and self-evident as that, but about the veiling, which she was 
bound to observe. The conjectural interpretations which have been at- 
tempted are so far-fetched as not to deserve further mention. We may add 
that there is no evidence in antiquity for the symbolism which Paul here con- 
nects with the veiling of the women in assemblies (the hints which Baur 
founds upon in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 571 ff., are tooremote). We have 
the more reason, therefore, to agree with Liicke in ascribing it to the inge- 
nious apostle himself, however old the custom itself—that married women 
should wear veils in public—was in Hebrew usage (Ewald, Alterth. p. 269 
f.). — dia tov¢ ayyéAove| which Baur uncritically holds to be a gloss—a view 
to which Neander also was inclined—is not a formula obsecrandi (Heyden- 
reich, who, with Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, and Zachariae, strangely 
assumes a reference to Isa. vi. 2), but a clause adding to the inner ground 
(dia rovr0) an outward one: ‘‘for the sake of the angels,” in erder to avoid 
exciting disapproval among them.’ Tove ayyéAove aidéoOytt, Chrysostom. LEras- 
mus puts it well in his Paraphrase: ‘‘Quodsi mulier eo venit impudentiae, 
ut testes hominum oculos non vereatur, saltem ob angelos testes, qui 
vestris conventibus intersunt, caput operiat.” That the holy angels are 
present at assemblies for worship, is an idea which Paul had retained from 
Judaism (LXX. Ps. cxxxviil. 1; Tob. xii. 12 f.; Buxtorf, Synag. 15, p. 
306 ; Grotius im loc.; Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. Il. p. 393), and 
made an element in his Christian conception,? in accordance with the 
ministering destination ascribed to them in Heb. i. 14, but without any of 
_the Jewish elaborations. It must remain a very doubtful point whether 
he had guardian angels (Acts xii. 15 ; Matt. xviii. 10) specially in view 
(Jerome, August. de Trin. xii. 7; Theodoret, comp. Theophylact), seeing 
that he nowhere says anything definite about them. Other expositors make 
the reference to be to the bad angels, who would be incited to wantonness 
by the unveiled women (Tert. ¢. Marc. v. 8 ; de virg. vel. 7, al.),* or might 
incite the men to it (Schoettgen, Zeltner, Mosheim), or might do harm to 
the uncovered women (Wetstein, Semler). Others, again, understand it to 


1[So Hodge, Lange’s Com., Stanley, 


that relation to the woman 2hich is assigned 
Prine. Brown, Speaker’s Com., Ellicott’s 


to her husband.” Hilgenfeld too, in his 


Com., and Beet.—T. W. C.] 

2 Since the apostle is speaking of meet- 
ings for worship, it is unsuitable to make 
‘the reference be to the angels as: witnesses 
of the creation of the first pair; so van Hen- 
- gel, Annot. p. 181 f., following a Schol. in 
Matthiae. Any allusion to Gen. vi. 1-4 (sug- 
gested already by Tertullian, a. Comp. 
also Kurtz, d. Hhen d. Séhne Gottes, p. 177, 
and Hofmann) is wholly foreign to the pas- 
sage. Hofmann imports into it the idea: 
“that the spirits which have sway in the cor- 
poreal world might be tempted ¢o enter into 


Zeitschr. 1864, p. 188, makes it refer to the 
story in the Book of Enoch, 5 f., about the 
transgression of the angels with the daugh- 
ters of men. What an importing of carnal 
lust / And were not the women whom the 
apostle here warns in part matrons and 
gray-headed dames ! 

3 Test. XII. Patr. p. 529 should not be ad- 
duced here (against Bretschneider). The 
passage contains a warning against the 
vanity of head-ornament, the seductive 
character of which is proved by an argu- 
ment @ major ad minus. 


254 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


mean pious men (Clem. Alex.), or the Christian prophets (Beza), or those pre- 
siding in the congregation (Ambrosiaster), or those deputed to bring about 
betrothals (Lightfoot), or unfriendly spzes (Heumann, Alethius, Schulz, Morus, 
Storr, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Schrader)—all mere attempts at explana- 
tion, which are sufficiently disposed of by the single fact that dyyeAo, 
when standing absolutely in the N. T., always denotes good angels alone. See 
on iv. 9. The correct exposition is given also by Diisterdieck, l.c., who 
shows well the fine trait of apostolic mysticism in é:a Tove ayyéAove. 

Ver. 11. Paul’s teaching from ver. 7 onward might possibly be misin- 
terpreted by the men, so as to lead them to despise the women, and by the 
women so as to underrate their own position. Hence the caveat which now 
follows (érdyec tiv didp$worv, Chrys.) against the possible dislocation of the 
Christian relation of the two sexes : nevertheless, neither is the woman with- 
out the man, nor the man without the woman in Christ, i.e. nevertheless there 
subsists such a relation between the two in the sphere of the Christian life 
(év Kupiw), that neither does the woman stand severed from the man, 7.e. in- 
dependent of, and without bond of fellowship with, him, nor vice versd. 
They are united as Christian spouses (comp. ver. 3) in mutual dependence, 
each belonging to the other and supplying what the other lacks ; neither 
of the parties being a separate independent person. The év Kupiw thus as- 
signs to the relation here expressed the distinctive sphere, in which it sub- 
sists. Out of Christ, in a profane marriage of this world, the case would 
be different. Were we, with Storr, Heydenreich, Riickert, Hofmann, to 
take év Kup/w as predicative definition : ‘‘ neither does the woman stand in 
connection with Christ without the man, nor vice versd,” this would resolve 
itself either into the meaning given by Grotius : ‘‘ Dominus neque viros 
exclusis feminis, neque feminas exclusis viris redemit ;” or into Hofmann’s 
interpretation, that in a Christian marriage the relation to the Lord is a 
common one, shared in by the two parties alike. But both of these ideas 
are far too obvious, general, and commonplace to suit the context. Ols- 
hausen (comp. Beza) renders it, ‘‘ by the arrangement of God.” But év Kupio 
is the statedly used term for Christ ; the reference to the divine arrangement 
comes in afterwards in ver. 12. 

Ver. 12. Hor, were this not the case, the Christian system would be clearly at 
variance with the divine arrangement in nature. This against Riickert, who 
accuses ver. 12 of lending no probative support to ver. 11. — 7 yuva éx tot 
avodp.| sc. éot1, namely, in respect of origination at first. Comp. ver. 8.—6é 
avyp dia the yuv.| in respect of origination now. ’Ex denotes the direct orig- 
ination in the way known to all his readers from the history of woman’s 
creation in Gen. ii. 21 f. 5 dvd again the mediate origin by birth, all men 
being yevrytol yuvacxov, Matt. xi. 11 ; Gal. iv. 4. Paul might have repeated 
the é« in the second clause also (Matt. i. 16; Gal. iv. 4), but he wished to 
mark the difference between the first and the continued creation. And in 
order to bring out the sacred character of the moral obligation involved in 
this genetic relation of mutual dependence, he adds : ra dé wévra éx T. Ocod : 
now all this, that we have been treating of (‘‘ vir, mulier et alterius utrius 
mutua ab altero dependentia,” Bengel), is from God, proceeding from and 


CHAP. XI., 18-15. 2d5 


ordered by Him. As regards this éx, comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 
Rom. xi. 36. 

Vv. 13-15. By way of appendix to the discussion, the apostle refers his 
readers—as regards especially the praying of the women, which had given 
rise to debate—to the voice of nature herself. He asks them : Is it seemly, 
—judge within yourselves concerning it,—is it seemly that a woman should 
offer up prayers uncovered ? Does not nature herself even (ovdé) teach you 
the opposite ? — éy iwiv airoic] without any influence from without ; comp. 
x. 15. —76 Oe] superfluous in itself, but added forthe sake of emphasis, in 
order to impress upon them the more deeply the unseemliness of the un- 
covered state in which the woman comes forward to deal with the Most High 
in prayer. — Regarding the different constructions with rpérov éori, see Butt- 
mann, newt. Gr. p. 239 [E. T. 278].—The doce is the natural relation of the 
judgment and feeling to the matter in question,—the native, inborn sense 
and perception of what is seemly. This instinctive consciousness of pro- 
priety had been, as respected the point in hand, established by custom and 
had become dior. Comp. Chrysostom. The manifold discussions, to little 
purpose, by the old commentators regarding the meaning of ¢iovc, may be 
seen in Poole’s Synopsis, and in Wolf. It is here, as often in Greek writers 
(comp. also Rom, ii. 14), the contrast to education, law, art, and the like. 
It cannot in this passage mean, as Hofmann would have it, the arrangement 
of things in conformity with their creation—that is to say, the arrangement of 
nature in the objective sense (so, frequently in the classics), for the assertion 
that this teaches all that is expressed by the 67: avy «.7.2. would go much 
too far and be unwarranted. Were we, again, to assume that 67: does not 
depend at all on diddoxe, but gives the ground for the question, so that 
diddoxer WOuld require its contents to be supplied out of the first half of 
the verse, how awkwardly would Paul have expressed himself, and how 
liable must he have been to misapprehension, in putting 67c instead of con- 
veying his meaning with clearness and precision by ydp ! And even apart 
from this objection as to the form of expression, we cannot surely suppose 
that the apostle would find in a fact of aesthetic custom (vv. 14, 15)—that 
is to say, a something in its own nature accidental, and subsisting as an 
actual fact only for the man accustomed to it—the confirmation of what the 
order of things in conformity with their creation teaches. (s') — air4] inde- 
pendently of all other instruction.—Upon the matter itself (kéuyy 08 Every Kat 
ebkopov eivat yuvakdrepdv éort, Eustath. ad I7. iil. p. 288), see Perizonius, ad 
Ael. V. H. ix. 4; Wetstein in loc. In ancient times, among the Hellencs, 
the luxuriant, carefully-tended hair of the head was the mark of a free man 
(see generally, Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxiii. 13 ff.). Comp. also 2 Sam. 
xiv. 25 f. In the church, both by councils and popes, the xcoworpogety was 
repeatedly and strictly forbidden to the clergy.’ See Decretal, lib, iil. tit. 


11Tf we are to look upon the tonsure, how- held by the apostle in our text. Long hair 
ever, as a symbol of the spiritual life in on the head is a disgrace to a man in his 
contradistinction to the vanities of this eyes ; because he regards it as a sign of 
world (see Walter, Firchenr. § 212), then human subjection. 
this by no means corresponds to the view 


256 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


i, cap. 4. 5. 7. — ore 4 dun avi repe3. déd.] Ground for long hair being an 
ornament to a woman : because it is given to her instead of a veil, to take its 
place, to be, as it were, a natural veil. This again implies that to wear a 
veil, as in the case in hand, is a decorous thing. For if the «éuy is an hon- 
our for a woman because it is given to her in place of a veil, then the veil itself 
too must be an honour to her, and to lay it aside in prayer a disgrace. 
‘‘Naturae debet respondere voluntas,” Bengel. TlepsBdAaiov, something thrown 
round one, a covering in general (see the Lexicons, and Schleusner, Thes. IV. 
p. 289), has here a special reference to the veil (kaAbarpa, xdAvupa) spoken of 
in the context. ; 

Ver. 16. The apostle has done with the subject ; but one word more of 
warning now against all controversy about it.—doxet] Vulg. : ‘‘si quis autem 
videtur contentiosus esse.”? This would imply that sort of forbearing cour- 
tesy in the Jdoxei, according to which one ‘‘ videri aliquid esse, quam vere esse 
dicere maluit,” Fritzsche, ad Matth. p.129. Comp. Frotscher, ad Xen. Hier. 
p. 92. Sturz, Ler. Xen. I. p. 757 f. So de Wette and Winer, p. 570 [E. T. 
766]. But one can see no reason for Paul’s choosing any such special deli- 
cacy of phrase. If, again, we understand the words to mean : if any one 
likes to be, or has pleasure in being, contentious (Luther, Grotius, Riickert), 
that is to confound the expression with the construction doxei po.’ The 
simplest explanation, and, at the same time, quite literally faithful, is, as in 
Matt. iii. 9, Phil. iii. 4: if any one és of opinion, if he thinks, or is minded 
to be, etc. ; but to import the notion of permission into the infinitive here, 
in connection with this rendering (Billroth), would be arbitrary, because 
without warrant from the text (Kitihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1). — queic 
ro.aiTyv K.T.A.] Aeclarative : Let him be told that we, etc. Comp. Rom. xi. 
18. See Winer, p. 575 [E. T. 773]. —jueic] Land those who are like minded 
with me. — ro.abtyv cvvhO.| such a custom. Interpreters refer this either to 
the censured practice of the women being unveiled (Theodoret, Erasmus, 
Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich, Flatt, Bill- 
roth, Olshausen, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann), or to the custom of 
contention (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Calo- 
vius, and others, including Riickert and de Wette). The latter swits the 
immediate context, and is required by jueic ; hence we cannot, with The- 
ophylact and Osiander, leave it an open question which of the two refer- 
ences should be preferred. The oid ai éxxA. tr. Ocod is not against this 
view ; for what is asserted is not that all individual members were free from 
the love of strife, but only that the churches as awhole were so. These last 
are distinguished. by oidé ai éxxr. tr. Ocod from the individuals implied in 
queic. Neither does the expression ovrf#eca throw any difficulty in the way 
of our interpretation ; on the contrary, occurring as it does in this short con- 
cluding sentence of deprecation, it lends to it a certain point against the 
readers, some of whom seem to have allowed this vice of contentiousness 
to grow with them into a habit ; it was their miserable custom / (t') — The 


1 So, too, Sox por, lubet, volo. See Ast, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 251. Also Sédoxrat por. See 
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 552. 


CHAP. XI., 17-19. 25% 


abnormal position of isolation, into which their controversial tendencies 
would bring them, should surely suffice to prevent their indulging them ! 

Ver. 17. Transition to the censure which follows. Now this (what I have 
written up to this point about the veiling of the women) J enjoin,’ while I 
do not praise (i.e. while I join with my injunction the censure), that ye, etc. 
The ‘‘litotes” ob« érawvév glances back upon ver. 2. Lachmann’s view, ac- 
cording to which the new section begins at ver. 16, so that @:Adveckog would 
relate to the cyiouara in ver. 18, has this against it, that rapayyéAAw always 
means praecipio in the N. T. (vii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 
10, 12, al.), not ZT announce, and that no injunction is expressed in ver. 16. 
Moreover, we should desiderate some conclusion to the foregoing section, 
and, as such, considering especially that the matter in question was such a 
purely external one, ver. 16 comes in with peculiar appropriateness. Other 
expositors, such as Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, 
Bengel, Riickert, also Ewald and Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, 
p. 235 f.), refer rovro, after the example of the Greek Fathers, to what 
follows, inasmuch, namely, as the exposition now to begin ends in a command, 
and shows the reason why the church deserves no praise in this aspect of its 
church-life. Paul has already in his mind, according to these interpreters, 
the directions which he is about to give, but lays a foundation for them 
first of all by censuring the disorders which had crept in. Upon that view, 
however, the rovro mapayy. would come in much too soon ; and we must 
suppose the apostle, at the very beginning of an important section, so little 
master of his own course of thought, as himself to throw his readers into 
confusion by leaving them without anything at all answering to the roiro 
mapayy. — Ott ovK ig TO Kpsitrov x.t.A.|] does not give the reason of his not 
praising, but—seeing there is no éuac¢ with érav., as in ver. 2—states what it 
is that he cannot praise. Your coming together is of such a kind that not 
the melius but the pejus arises out of it as its result ; that it becomes worse 
instead of better with you (with your Christian condition). Theophylact 
and Billroth make 16 xpeitr. and 7d 7rrov refer to the assemblies themselves : 
‘that you hold your assemblies in such a way that they become worse instead 
of better.” A tame idea ! 

Vv. 18, 19. Ilpérov pév ydp| The second point is found by most expositors 
in ver. 20 (so Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Winer, 
p. 536 [E. T. 721]). In that case Paul first of all .censures here generally 
the divisions which appeared in their assemblies, and then in ver. 20 links 
on by ody the abuse of the Lord’s Supper as a consequence of those divisions. 
But this view has against it the fact that he follows up ver. 18 neither by 
censure nor correction of what was amiss, which he would not have omitted 
to do, considering the importance of the matter in question, if he had re- 
garded ver. 18 as touching upon a distinct point from that in vy. 20, 21. 
Moreover, in ver. 22, éra:véow ipyac; év tobTy obk éxavd, Which has reference 


1 Hofmann irrelevantly objects to our enjoined that the women should be veiled 
making rodro refer to the preceding pas- (comp. esp. vv. 5, 6, 10), and not simply ex- 
sage, that Paul has previously enjoined pressed his opinion upon a custom that 
nothing. He has, in fact, very categorically displeased him. 


258 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


to the ov« érawév of ver. 17, proves that in his mind vv. 18-22 formed not 
two rebukes, but one. This serves, too, by way of reply to Hofmann, who 
insists on taking xpdroy, in spite of the pév that follows it, not as jirst, but 
as before all things, above all. The true view, on the contrary, is (comp. also 
Baur in the theol. Jahrbicher, 1852, p. 558 ; Ribiger, p. 185 ; Osiander), 
that ody in ver. 20 does not introduce a second point of reprehension, but 
takes up again the first point, which had been begun in ver. 18 and inter- 
rupted by kai pépog te x.7.A. (See .on vill. 4),—an interpretation which is 
strongly supported by the repetition of the same words ovvepyou. tudv. In 
using the term cyiouara,*’ Paul has already in his mind the separations at the 
love-feasts (not the party divisions of i. 12, Theodoret, and many others), 
but is kept for a time from explaining himself more fully by the digression 
which follows, and does so only in ver. 20. Still, however, the question 
remains : Where is the second point, which rpérov leads us to expect ? It com- 
mences in xii. 1. Paul censures two kinds of evils in connection with their 
assemblies—(1) the degeneration of the Agapae (vv. 18-34), and (2) the 
misapplication of the gifts of the Spirit (xii. 1 ff.). The rpérov pév is left 
out of account while he pursues the first point, and instead of following it 
up with an éze:ra dé, after completing his discussion, he passes on in xii. 1 
with the continuative dé to second subject, making no further reference to 
that rpdrov wév yap in ver. 18. How common it is in classic writers also to 
find the zpérov followed by no ére:ra, or anything of the kind, but another 
turn given to the sentence, may be seen in Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 191 ; 
Bremi, ad Lys. I. p. 81. Comp. on Actsi. 1, and on Rom. 1. 8, ii. 2. — é» 
éxka. | ina church-meeting. This is conceived of as a local sphere (comp. Ben- 
gel: ‘‘vergit ad significationem loci”), in which the ovvépyecbac takes place 
by the arrival of members ; as we also say: ‘‘in einer Gesellschaft zusam- 
menkommen.”? Comp. Winer, p. 386 [E. T. 515]. Although the apostle 
might have written ei¢ éxxAnoiav (Lucian, Jov. Trag. 6), yet we must neither 
take év in the sense of ei¢ (Vulgate, Riickert, Schrader), nor impute to the 
word éxxa. the meaning : place of assembly (Grotius, Wolf, Heydenreich), 
nor understand it adverbially, as with abstract terms : congregationally 
(Hofmann). — There should be no comma after éxxa.; for ovvépy. x.T.2. 
connects itself in meaning not with dxotw, but with cyicuara x.t.A. —akotw| 
in the sense of axfxoa, denoting continuance. See Ast, ad Plat. Leg. 
p. 9 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 370; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. il. 5. 26. — pépoe tx] 
for a part, partly, Thuc. i. 23. 3, ii. 64. 2, iv. 30. 1 ; Isocr. p. 426 D. He 
cannot bring himself to believe ali that he has heard of the divisions at 
their assemblies. A delicate way of showing the better opinion that he still 
has of his readers, not a reference to the uncertainty of the source whence 
the news reached him (Hofmann). — dei] according to God’s decree. It is 
the ‘‘ necessitas consequentiae’”’ (Melanchthon) ; for the iva which follows 
indicates, according to the apostle’s teleological view (comp. Matt. xviii. 
7), the end ordained by God, namely, that the tried, those who have not 


1 Chrysostom wellremarks: ov Aéyetaxovw  padrora ixavoy hv avtav Scacetoat THy Stavotav, 
Mn kon Vmas ouvdertvety, akovw yap Kat’ idiav TOUTO TédELKE TO TOD TXiTMATOS OVOMA, 0 Kal TOU- 
Upmas éoTiagtat Kal KH META TOV TEVYATWY GAA’ Od TOU 7V GiTLOV. 


CHAP. XL, 20. 259 
‘suffered themselves to be carried away by party-agitation, should become 
manifest. (U*) — «ai aipécerc] It cannot be proved (although Riickert, Nean- 
der, Hofmann, and others hold) that aipécecc is something worse’ than cyic- 
para (and that cai must mean even), as Pelagius, Estius, and Calovius would 
take it ; for cai may be simply also (among other evils also), and in Gal. v. 
20—where, moreover, oyiouara does not come in at all—Paul does not in- 
tend to construct an exact climax, but merely to heap together kindred 
things. Now, seeing that our Epistle says nothing of absolute party-sepa- 
rations, but always shows us merely party-divisions subsisting along with 
outward unity, one cannot well make out wherein the worseness of the 
aipécecc consisted ; for to hold, with Riickert, that eivac means to ensue, and 
points to the future (as Hofmann too maintains), is a perfectly groundless 
assumption. The aipécecc were there, were not merely coming ; it will not do 
to confound eiva: with yivecOa or éAbeiv (Matt. xvili. 7; Luke xvii. 1), a 
mistake into which J. Miiller also falls, lc. We must therefore, with 
Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen, a/., regard aipéce:c as another form of des- 
ignation for the same thing (the cyiowara). It does not mean heresies in 
the: sense of false doctrine (2 Pet. ii. 1), as Calvin, Calovius, and others 
maintain ; neither does it refer simply to the separations in keeping the 
Agapae (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact) ; but—as is clear from the 
nature of the sentence as assigning a more general reason for what had been 
said—to factious divisions in the church generally ® (according as there existed 
tendencies and views at variance with each other and destructive of har- 
mony). Comp. on Gal. v. 20. 

Ver. 20. Oiv] resuming’ after the parenthesis ; see on ver. 18. — én? 1d 
avté| to the same place. See on Acts i. 15. —oix éore xupiax. deity. day. | 
there does not take place an eating of a Lord’s Supper, i.e. one cannot eat a Lord’s 
Supper in that way ; it is morally impossible, since things go on in such 
fashion as ver. 21 thereupon specifies by way of proof. We have here the 
very common and familiar use of gor: with the infinitive, in the sense of : it 
4s possible, one can, as in Heb. ix. 5. So e.g. the passages from Plato given 
by Ast, Lev. I. p. 622 ; Hom. i. xxi. 198, al. ; Thuc. viii. 58 ; Soph. Phil. 
69 ; Aesch. Pers. 414; Polyb. i. 12. 9, v. 98. 4. It occurs in the classics 
also for the most part with the negative. See generally, Valckenaer on 
Eurip. Hippol. 1826. Beza, Estius, Zachariae, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
Winer, al., render it otherwise, as if there were a rotro in the text : this zs 
not, etc. And even if there were such a rovro, it would have nothing here 
to connect itself with. — xvpiaxdy deirvov] a meal belonging to the Lord, conse- 
crated to Christ ; comp. ver. 27, x. 21. The name was given to the love- 
Jeasts (Agapae, Jude 12), at which the Christians ate and drank together 
what they severally brought with them, and with which was conjoined the 
Lord’s Supper properly so called (x. 16, 21 ; comp. on Acts ii. 42), so that 


1S0 also J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 588, - atpeors a ‘‘ mollius vocabulum” than oxiona, 


ed. 5, holds that cxyiou. denotes the inner 
disunion in the church, which shows itself 
in positive division and faction (aipécets). 
Wetstein, on the contrary, considered 


2 It is arbitrary to ascribe the disturbance 
about the Lord’s Supper to one special 
party at Corinth, such as the Christ-party 
(Olshausen), or that of Apollos (Rabiger). 


260 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

the bread was distributed and partaken of during the meal and the cup 
after it, according to the precedent of the original institution. Comp. 
Tertullian, Apol. 30. Chrysostom, indeed, and Pelagius held that Lord’s 
Supper came jirst ; but this is contrary to the model of the first institution, 
came into vogue only at a later date, and rests purely upon the ascetic idea 
that it was unbefitting to take the Eucharist after other food. To under- 
stand here, as Hofmann does, not the whole meal, but merely the celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper, which was conjoined with it, is not in keeping with 
the phrase deizvov, the precise scope of which is determined by the meal so 
originally instituted (John xiii. 2) to which it points. 

Ver. 21. UpotauBdvec] takes beforehand his own meal (as contrasted with 
xuplak. deixv., comp. Chrysostom : 7d yap Kupiakdv idtwrixdy rocovorv). Instead 
of waiting (ver. 33) till a general distribution be made and others thus 
obtain a share (comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 14. 1), and till by this means the meal 
assume the form of a xvpiaxdy deirvoyv, he seizes at once for himself alone 
upon the portion which he brought with him, and holds therewith his own 
private méal in place of the Lord’s Supper. The expression is not ‘‘in the 
highest degree surprising,” as Riickert calls it ; but it is very descriptive of 
the existing state of matters. Grotius (comp. de Wette) is wrong in sup- 
posing that the rich ate first, and left what remained for the poorer members. 
This runs counter to the éxaoroc, which must mean every one who brought 
anything with him. Of course, when the rich acted in the way here 
described, the poor also had to eat whatever they might have brought with 
them by themselves ; and if they had nothing, then this abuse of the Lord’s 
Supper sent them empty away, hungry and put to shame (vv. 22, 33). —év 
TO gayeiv| not ad manducandum (Vulg.), but in the eating, at the holding of 
the meal. — rewva] because, that is to say, he had nothing, or but little, to 
bring with him, so that he remained unsatisfied, receiving nothing from the 
stores of the wealthier members. — efbec] is drunken, not giving the exact 
opposite of red, but making the picture all the fuller and more vivid, be- 
cause teva and wefiec lead the reader in both cases to imagine for himself 
the other extreme corresponding to the one specified. We must not weaken 
the natural force of we0., as Grotius does, to ‘‘ plus satis bibit.” See on John 
ii. 20. Paul paints the scene in strong colours ; but who would be war- 
ranted in saying that the reality fell at all short of the description ? 

Ver. 22. In a lively succession of questions the apostle shows how un- 
suitable and unworthy this procedure of theirs was. — mu) yap oikiac K.T.A. | 
yap has inferential force ; see on Matt. xxvii. 23; John ix. 30; Acts xix. 
85 ; and Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 559] ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 10: you 
surely are not without houses? The sense of astonishment (Hartung, Partikell. 
I. p. 478) is conveyed by the question, not by the yap. —% tig éxxAnoiac.. . 
éyovrac| a second counter question, which divides itself into two parts: 7 or, 
again, is it the case with you that you are persons whose business it is (1) 
generally to despise the church of God (which you show by your not counting 


1The underlying dilemmatic conclusion of God, etc.; you have houses, therefore you 
is: Persons who act as you do have either despise, etc. 
no houses, etc., or they despise the church 


CHAP. XI., 23. 261 


its members worthy to eat and drink on a common footing with you), and (2) 
to cause the poor to be put to shame? ‘The latter could not but feel themselves 
slighted, if they were not thought worthy of having a share in what the 
wealthier had provided. The main emphasis in the first clause is upon rie éxxA. 
T. Ocov (Oecd, ‘‘ dignitas ecclesiae,” Bengel, comp. ver. 16); in the second, 
upon karacybvere. — Respecting obk Ever, not to have, to be poor, see Wet- 
stein on 2 Cor. viii. 13 ; comp. oi éyovrec, divites, in Ast, ad Plat. Legg. v. 
p. 172; Bornemann, ad Anabd. vi. 6. 38. Here, however, we have y4 with 
the participle and article, because the class is referred to (Baeumlein, Partik. 
p. 296). — ri tiv eitw x.7.A.] what shall I say to you? ShallI give you 
praise? On this point I praise not. If we keep ver. 17 in view, to connect 
év Toor» With éravé gives a more suitable emphasis for the words than to . 
link them with the preceding clause (Lachmann, Hofmann, with various 
codices and versions). On other points he has already praised them, ver. 2. 
The apostle’s deliberative and ceremonious mode of expressing himself, and 
the result that he arrives at, could not but make the readers themselves 
feel how much they deserved the reverse of praise in this matter. 

Ver. 23. Ground of the év roitw oik éxawd. orl, for my part, have re- 
ceived the following instructions from Christ touching the institution of the Lord's 
Supper,’ which I also delivered to you. Wow should it be possible then that 
your disorder should meet with praise, so far as Iam concerned, at variance 
as it is with the knowledge of the matter obtained by me from Christ and 
communicated to you ?— a7é tot Kupiov] Had Paul written rapa r. x., this 
would have denoted that he had received the instructions directly from 
Christ (Gal. i. 12 ; 1 Thess. 11, 13, iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 14; Acts x. 22; John 
vi. 45, viii. 40, x. 18) ; amd 7. x., on the other hand, means forth from the 
Lord, from the Lord’s side as the source, so that the preposition taken by itself 
leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect (so 
generally, including Gal. iii. 2; Col. iii. 24) or a direct one (as in Col. i. 7 ; 
1 John 1.5; 3 John 7). And Hofmann does not go further than this in- 
definite relation, holding the only idea expressed here to be that of origin 
from the Lord ; comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 211. But seeing that, 
if what Paul had in view had been an immediate reception, it would have 
been natural for him, and of some importance for his argument, to express 
_ this distinctly by using apd, while yet in point of fact he uses only axé, we 
are warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed 
from Christ as originator, but reached him only mediately through another 
channel. (v’) This applies against Calovius, Bengel, Flatt, and others, 
including Heydenreich, Olshausen, de Wette (assuming a confirmation by 
special revelation of what he had learned from report), Osiander, who all 
find here a direct communication from Christ. The argument of Schulz and 
de Wette, however, against this latter view, on the ground of the word rapé- 
AaB. being in itself inappropriate, will not hold, especially when we view 
it as correlative to rapédwxa ; Comp. XV. 3. 


1 Not merely regarding its design and re- _ the special account of the institution itself, 
quirements (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 853 f.); for which follows, goes beyond that. 


262 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


The question now remains: Does Paul, in asserting that his account of 
the institution proceeded from the Lord, mean to say simply that he received 
what follows by a tradition descending from Christ,’ or by a revelation 
issuing from Christ? The latter alternative, which Riickert also adopts 
(Abendm. p. 194 f.), is not to be rejected on the ground of the following 
narrative being something with which all were familiar. For it is quite 
possible that it was wholly unknown to the apostle at the time of his con- 
version ; and even apart from that, it was so important for his apostolic 
vocation that he should have a sure and accurate knowledge of these facts, 
and to receive it by way of special revelation was so completely in harmony 
with Paul’s peculiar ‘position as an apostle, since he had not personally been 
a witness of the first Lord’s Supper, that there is nothing to forbid our 
assuming that he received his account of the institution of this ordinance, 
like his gospel generally, in the way of authentic revelation from Christ. 
As to the form of mediate communication through which Christ had caused 
these facts to reach Paul, not appearing to him for this purpose Himself, we 
must leave that point undecided, since very various kinds of media for 
divine revelations are possible and are historically attested. It may have 
been by an utterance of the Spirit, by an angel appearing to him, by seeing 
and hearing in an ecstatic state. Only the contents of the revelation—from 
its essential connection with the gospel, and, in fact, with its fundamental 
doctrine of the work of reconciliation—exclude, according to Gal. i. 1, 12, 
15, the possibility of human intervention as regards the apostle in the 
matter ; so that we should not be justified in supposing that the revelation 
reached him through some man (such as Ananias) commissioned to convey 
it to him by the Lord. As to the view that we have here a mere tradition, 
on the other hand, recounted by Paul as originating with Christ, the 
apostle himself decides against it both by his use of the singular (comp. 
xv. 3), and also by the significant prominence given to the éyé, whereby he 
puts forward with the whole strength of conscious apostolic authority the 
communication made to himself, to him personally, by the Lord, over-against 
the abuse, contrasting with it, of the Holy Supper among the Corinthians. 
Had he meant simply to say : ‘‘I know it through a tradition proceeding 
from Christ,” then his ¢yé would have been on the same level with every 
other, and the emphatic prominence which he gives to the éyé, as well as 
the sing. mrapéAaBov, would be quite unsuitable, because without any 
specific historical basis ; he would in that case have written : rapeAdBouev 
yap ard tov Kupiov. We have certainly therefore in this passage not merely 
the oldest account of the Lord’s Supper, but even ‘‘ an authentic explanation 
given by the risen Christ regarding, His sacrament” (Olshausen) ; not one 
directly from His lips indeed, but conveyed through some medium of revela- 
tion, the precise form of which it is impossible for us now to determine, 
whereby we have a guarantee for the essential contents of the narrative inde- 
pendently of the Gospels, although not necessarily an absolute ultimate 
authority establishing the literal form of the words of institution (even in 


1 So Neander and Keim in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 69. 


CHAP. XI., 24. 263 
opposition to Matthew and Mark), since a revelation of the history, nature, 
and meaning of the institution might be given even without any verbal 
communication of the words spoken in connection with it. — 6 cai rapé0. | 
which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you. Conversely in xv. 3. 
Instances of rapadauB. and rapadviva, in the sense of discere and tradere, 
' may be seen in Kypke. — 6r:] that, as in xv. 3, not for, as Luther and Hof- 
mann render it. . The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had 
received and delivered, in spite of the importance of the matter in ques- 
tion ; and it derives no support from the repetition of the subject, 6 Kipuzog, 
since that, with the addition of the sacred name ’Ijootc, gives a solemn em- 
phasis to the statement. It is the full doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which 
they owe to him, that heis now setting before his readers. — év ri vuxti 7 
mapedidoro (imperfectum adumbratiwum, see Kiihner, II. p. 73): in the night 
in which His betrayal was going on (hence not the aorist). It is a deeply 
solemn and arresting thought contrasted with the frivolity displayed 
among the Corinthians at the Agapae. The preposition is not repeated 
before the relative. Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with 
Kiihner thereon ; Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in 
loc. — aptov| bread (a cake of bread), which lay on the table. 


' Remanx.—The agreement which prevails between Paul’s account of the Sup- 
per and that of Luke, is not to be explained by a dependence of Paul upon 
Luke (Grotius, comp. also Beza), but conversely. See on Luke xxii. 20, Re- 
mark. 


Ver. 24. Totré pov éoti rd ciual] This is my body (the body of me). The 
emphasis lies not on the enclitic pov, but on 7d cOua. See, further, on Matt. 
xxvi. 26, and Keim (in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 73), as against 
Strébel (in Rudelbach’s. Zettschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.), who would have 
tovro not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward to what 
is to be designated by the predicate. This rovro can mean nothing else 
whatever but : this broken bread here, which again necessitates our taking éori 
as the copula of the symbolic ‘‘ being.”—Otherwise the identity of the sub- 
ject and predicate here expressed would be, alike for the speaker and the 
hearers, an impossible conception ; the body of the Lord was still alive, 
and His death, which answered to the breaking of the bread, was yet in the 
future. When we come, therefore, to define éori more precisely in connec- 
tion with that jirst celebration of the Supper, it is to be taken as ‘“‘ being” 
in the sense of proleptic symbolism ; and thereby the very possibility of the 
Lutheran synecdoche (upon which even Mehring falls back, in the Luther. 
Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 82) is done away. — 70 tirép tudv] KAduevov is spurious. 
We must supply simply dv : which is for your behoof’, namely, by its being 
broken (slain’). Christ’s body was not, indeed, literally broken (John xix. 


1This more precise explanation of the 
absolute 7d vrép vu., sc. bv, is to be drawn 
from the preceding éxAace ; and hence the 
addition of cAdémevor is very correct in point 
of interpretation. But the word was not 


spoken by Jesus, only the thought was ex- 
pressed in the action of breaking the bread. 
This sé/en¢t language of lively depicting suits 
well with the deep emotion of the moment ; 
and there is no ground either for regarding 


264 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

38), but in His violent death our Lord sees that accomplished in His body 
which He had just done with the bread. This is the point of what he be- 
holds in the broken bread looked upon by Him with such direct creative 
vividness of regard ; but in truth the simple 70 irép iuév is more in keeping 
with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to expound ina 
more detailed way the symbolism which both presents and interprets itself 
in the breaking of bread ; and Matthew and Mark have noé even this ‘‘ for 
you.”? —rovto roeire] to wit, what I now do ; not merely the breaking of 
the bread joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but also—as the action itself 
became the silent commentary on this totro — the distribution and eating of 
the bread ; comp. ver. 26. — éic¢ tr. gu. avauv.] in remembrance of me, presup- 
poses His absence in body for the future ; see on Luke xxii. 19. We may 
add that these words also do not occur in Matthew and Mark, whose simple 
touTé éoTt T. oOmd pov Carries it with a presumption of its being the original, 
unexpanded by any later explanation or reflection. Generally speaking, a 
like preference must be accorded to the narratives of the Supper by Matthew 
and Mark (and between those two, again, to that of Mark) over those of 
Paul and Luke. 

Ver. 25. ‘Qoatr. x. t. mor.] 8c. ZAaBe Kai ebyaptotqoac Edwxev abroic (this last is” 
to be taken from éxiace), Vv. 23, 24. — 76 rorgp.] the cup which stood before 
Him. It was the cup which closed the meal, although there is no ground 
to connect peta 7d devrv. here with 7d rorgp., as Pott does. —éoriv] in the 
position which it has here, is decisive against our connecting év ro éu@ aip. 
with 7 «. dvaf., aS most interpreters do (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many 
others, including de Wette, Rodatz, Maier, Hofmann), although Luther (in 
the gr. Bek.) rightly rejects that connection. What Christ says is, that the 
cup is the new covenant in virtue of His blood, which, namely, is in the cup. 
For in the wine of the cup the Lord sees nothing else than His blood which 
was about to be shed. This vividly concrete, direct, but symbolical mode 
of view at that solemn moment stands out in the sharpest contrast with the 
strife of the churches on the subject (for the rest, see on Luke xxii. 19 f.). 
Christ’s blood became, by its being poured forth, the iAaorApiov,’ whereby 
the new covenant ? was founded (Rom. iii. 24 f., v. 3), the covenant of grace, 
in which were established, on man’s side, faith in Christ,—not, as in the old 
covenant, the fulfilling of the law,—and on God’s side forgiveness by the 


the reading which admits cAdmevov as prob- of even the symbolical interpretation of the 


able on internal evidence (Kahnis, Dogmat. 
I. p. 616), or for characterizing that which 
rejects it as “ vaga et frigida’’ (Reiche, 
Comm. crit.) ; nor will it do to explain the 
omission of the word by John xix. 36 f. (Hof- 
mann). Asto Hofmann’s making kAop. refer 
only to the violent bending and wrench- 
ing, as the term isused of men under tort- 
ure (see Wetstein) and by physicians, the 
very fact that the bread was d7oken should 
have sufficed of itself to forbid the idea. 
1The atonement through the death of 
Jesus is at any rate the necessary premiss 


Lord’s Supper. With every attempt to ex- 
plain away the atoning death, the Supper 
becomes utterly unintelligible. Comp. 
Ebrard, Dogma vom Abendm. II. p. 752 ff. 

2 The word covenant is unquestionably 
genuine, for it is common to all the narra- 
tives; but the designation of the dtadjxn as 
cay dates from Paul, being a later more 
precise definition of the phrase. ‘Katvjs in 
Matt. xxvi. 27 and Mark xiv. 24 is spurious. 
This applies also in opposition to Baurin | 
the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 551. 


CHAP.) U0.) 20; 265 


way of grace, justification, sanctification, and bestowal of eternal Messianic 
salvation. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. And the Lord looks upon the cup as this 
covenant, because He sees in the wine of the cup His covenant - sealing 
blood. Thecup therefore, in this deeply vivid symbolism of view is to Him 
as that which contains the covenant-blood of the covenant. — roito roeire| to 
be taken so as to harmonize with ver. 24. Hofmann is wrong in thinking 
that Paul lays such special emphasis on this statement of the purpose of the 
Supper, because it appeared incompatible with the Corinthian mode of ob- 
serving it. The apostle has no intention whatever here of laying emphasis 
either on one thing or another ; he wishes only to report, in their simple 
. objectivity, the sacred words in which the original institution was couched. 
What he desires to lay stress upon as against the Corinthians, comes in 
afterwards in ver. 26 ff. — dodxic dv riv.] peculiar to this account of the or- 
dinance : as often as ever (quotiescunque, see Kiihner, II. p. 94 ; comp. Ben- 
gel) ye drink it ; the context supplies rovro rd ror#p. as the object of riv., 
without its having to be represented by a pronoun (airé). See Kriiger, 
§60. 7; Kihner, ad Xen. Mem.1. 3.4. The will of Jesus, according to this, 
is that every time, when they drink the concluding cup at the meal of com- 
munion, they should, in remembrance of Him, do with it as has now been 
done. Hofmann would make the words mean : as often as ye are together at 
a Hw, But how can that be conveyed by the simple rivyre ? And it 
was certainly not a drinking meal, but a regular deizvov (ver. 25). — Note, 
further, as to the dv, that it is placed after dcdkc, ‘‘ quia in hac voce maxi- 
mum sententiae pondus positum est,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 16. 

- Ver. 26. Notstill words of Christ (Hwald),’ in citing which Paul glides in- 
_ voluntarily into the form into which they had by this time become moulded 
in the church ; for against this view there is (1) the unsuitableness in itself 
of such a torepov rpérepov in the expression (especially after ver. 23) ; (2) the 
fact of the words being linked to the preceding by ydp, which is less in 
keeping with the tone and direct form of the words of institution, but, on 
the other hand, naturally marks the apostle himself again beginning to 
speak ; and (3) the fact that Luke has nothing of a similar kind in his ac- 
count of the Supper. The common view is the right one, that Paul proceeds 
here in his own person. But what he gives is neither a further reason as- 
signed for oix éravé in ver. 22 (so Hofmann, in connection with his incor- 
rect interpretation of é7: in ver. 23), nor is it an experimental elucidation of 
the last words of ver. 25 (the ordinary view), for the contents of ver. 26 
stand rather in the logical relation of consequence to the foregoing narrative 
of institution. No; ydp is to be taken here (comp. on ver. 22) in its infer- 
ential sense, and made to refer to the whole preceding account of the ori- 
gin of the Supper. We may paraphrase thus: Such, then, being the facts of 
the original institution, it comes to pass that as often as ye, etc. — tov aprov 
tovrov| the bread prescribed according to this appointment of Christ ; 7d 
nothpiov ; the cup now spoken of, the eucharistic cup. — xatayyéAdete] ye pro- 


1In the Constitt. ap. too (viii. 12. 16) they change of tov davatov Tov Emov KatayyEr- 
are placed in Christ’s mouth, but with the Aere,adxpes av EAD, 


~ 


266 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
claim the Lord’s death, ¢.e. ye declare solemnly in connection with this ordi- 
nance, that Christ has died for you. This carayyéA2ev cannot without arbi- 
trariness be taken as merely a declaring by action (so commonly) ; it can only 
be taken as actually oral.’ How it took place, we do not know. The 
Peshito (the Vulgate has annuntiabitis) rightly took karayy. as indicative,” 
which Grotius and others ought not to have changed into annuntiare debetis ; 
for the proclamation in question was an essential thing which took place at 
the Supper, and therefore an admonition to it would have been inappropri- 
ate. Even in the case of unworthy participation the carayyéAAev referred to 
was not omitted ; the admonition, therefore, could only have respect to the 
worthiness of the participation, with which that rarayyéAAew was connected ; 
and, in point of fact, such an admonition follows accordingly in ver. 27 f. 
We must reject therefore the view commonly taken by other interpreters 
(and necessarily adopted by Ewald in accordance with his view of the verse 
as given above), namely, that xarayy. is imperative. See, besides, Rodatz 
in Liicke and Wieseler’s Vierteljahrschr., I. 3, p. 851. —dypio ob &20y] until 
He shall have come; for the apostle was convinced that the Parousia was 
close at hand, and therefore future generations could not have been present 
to his mind in writing thus ; but to apply his words to them is historically 
necessary and right. — dypuc stands without dy (see instances in Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 15 f.), because the arrival of the Parousia is conceived as abso- 
lutely certain, not as conditioned by any contingencies which might possi- 
bly delay it (Hermann, part. dv, p. 109 ff.).. In Gal. iv. 19 also, Paul, in 
the earnestness of his love, conceives the result as equally certain (against 
Riickert’s objection). After the Parousia the Lord Himself is again there. 
Theodoret : pera yap 0) tHv adtov Tapovoiav ovKéTL yptia TOV CVUBb6AwY TOD 
COMATOC, a’Tov Savouévov TOL GHuatoc’ Ard TovTO eimev’ Gypic ov av é2OH. 'TO 
eat with Him will then be a new thing (Matt. xxvi. 29) ; but until then the 
proclamation here spoken of is not to be silenced. How that thought was 
fitted to keep constantly before their minds the solemn responsibility of an 
unworthy participation in the Supper (see ver. 27) ! In this way Paul links 
to the carayyéAAev of the communicants the fear and trembling of the Maran 
atha, XV. 22. . 

Ver. 27. From that karayyéArew «.t.A. it follows how great is the sin of 
participating unworthily. This reference of the éore is sufficiently pointed 
and appropriate not to require us to go back further (to all that has been 


1 KatrayyéAdevv is always an actual procia- 
mation, never a mere giving to be known by 
deeds. Were the latter the meaning here, 
Paul would be using a poetical expression 
(something like avayyéAAevv in Ps. xix. 1f.), 
which would be not at all suitable in view 
of the context. IJ regret that Hofmann has 
been so hasty in censuring my assertion of 
the necessity of the above interpretation, 
asif it carried absurdity on the face of it. 
We do not know in what forms a liturgical 
element had already developed itself in con- 
nection with a rite which had now been ob- 


served for some quarter of a century. And 
have not the eucharistic liturgies up to this 
day, even the oldest that we are acquainted 
with (in Daniel, Codex liturg.), as for in- 
stance the ‘“ Liturgia Jacobi,’’ essential 
parts, which are axatayyéAAew of the Lord’s 
death? Comp. too the explicit confession 
prescribed at the Jewish feast of the Pass- 
over, Ex. xii. 27, xiii. 8. 

2 So also Theophylact, Beza, Bengel, de 
Wette, Osiander, Kahnis, Neander, Maier, 
Riickert in his Adendm. p. 211, Hofmann. 


CHAP HyXI., 27. 267 
said from ver. 20 onwards), as Riickert would have us do. —7 rivy] 4 does 
not stand for «ai (Pott and older expositors) ;1 but the meaning is: if a 
‘man partake of the one ov the other unworthily, he is alike guilty ; neither 
in the case of the bread nor of the wine should there be an unworthy par- 
ticipation. We must remember that the two elements were not partaken of 
in immediate succession, but the bread during the meal and the wine after it, 
so that the case was quite a possible one that the bread might be partaken 
of in a worthy, and the cup in an unworthy frame of spirit, and vice versd. 
Comp. also Hofmann. The guilt, however, of the one or the other un- 
worthy participation was the same, and was alike complete ; hence 7 is not 
repeated in the apodosis. Roman Catholics (see Estius and Cornelius a 
Lapide) find in this 7 a support for their ‘‘communio sub wna.” See Calo- 
vius in opposition to this. —rov Kvpiov] as xvpraxdy in ver. 20, x. 21. — 
avasing| in an unworthy manner, i.e. in a way morally out of keeping with the 
nature (x. 16) and design of the ordinance (ver. 24 f.). Paul does not define 
it more closely ; hence, and because an unworthy participation may, in the 
concrete, occur in many different ways, the widely differing definitions of 
interpreters,* which are, however, quite out of place here. For the apos- 
tle leaves it to his readers to rank for themselves their particular way of 
communicating under the general dvafioc, and not till ver. 29 does he him- 
self characterize the special form of unworthy participation which prevailed 
among them by 6 ydp éoGiwv x. tivwv. See on the verse. — évoyog éorat k.7.A. | 
évoyoc With the dative and genitive (see Matthiae, p. 850) expresses the lia- 
bility of guilt (see Bleek on Heb. ii. 15) : he shall be—from the moment he 
does so—under guilt to the body and blood of Christ, i.e. erimini et poenae 
corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit (comp. Jas. ii. 10, and the 


1 To this mistake, too, is to be traced the 
reading kat (in A D, some min. vss. and 
Fathers), which Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 
191, and Riickert approve. It was suggest- 
ed by ver. 26, and gained support from the 
cat which follows ; but is not necessary, for 
there is a change of conception. 

2 Theophylact, following Chrysostom, 
makes it @s meptop@vras Tovs mévytas. Theo- 
doret holds that Paul hits at those fond of 
power in Corinth, the incestuous person, 
and those who ate the things offered to 
idols, and generally all who receive the 
sacrament with bad conscience. Luther: 
“he is worthy who has /fai¢h in these words, 
‘broken for you, ete.’”’ Grotius: “ quihoce 
actu curat quae sua sunt, non quae Domini.” 
Bengel : “qui se non probant.” Flatt: not 
with thankful remembrance of the death of 
Jesus, not with reverence towards Him. 
not with love towards others ; so also in 
substance Riickert in his Commentary, and 
—with more detail and to some extent dif- 
ferently—in his work on the Lord’s Supper, 
p. 234. Billroth : with offence to the breth- 
ren. Olshausen: what is primarily meant 


/ 


is want of love, a disposition to judge 
others, but with the underlying idea that it 
is impenitence that makes an unworthy 
communicant. Kahnis: ‘‘ unbelief, which 
does not acknowledge a higher intrinsic 
worth in the Lord’s Supper.”’ At all events, 
it is the lack of a constantly present, lively, 
and active faith in the atonement brought 
about by Christ’s death, which is the soz7ce 
of the various states of moral unworthiness 
in which men may partake of the Supper : 
as was the case also with the Corinthians 
when they degraded it into an ordinary 
meal for eating and drinking (and Hofmann 
goes no further in his explanation of the 
avagéiws). The more earnest and powerful 
this faith is, the less ean that participation, 
by which we are conscious of coming into 
communion with the body and blood of the 
Lord, and thereby commemorating Him, 
take place in a way morally unworthy. 
Bengel is right indeed in saying: “ Alia est 
indignitas edentis, alia esus” (comp. Riickert, 
Abendm. p. 258) ; but the latter in its differ- 
ent moral forms is the necessary conse- 
quence of the former. 


268 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Classical évoyo¢ véuorc, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 869 BE) ; inasmuch, namely, as the 
proclamation of the Lord’s death at the participation in the bread and the 
cup presupposes a moral condition which must be in keeping with this most 
sacred act of commemoration ; and if the condition of the communicant 
be of an opposite kind, then the holy body and biood, into communion 
with which we enter through such participation, can only be abused and 
profaned. Comp. ver. 29, uj diaxpivev x.7.2.. The often repeated interpre- 
tation : ‘‘par facit, quasi Christum trucidaret” (Grotius, following Chrys- 
ostom and Theophylact), appears once more in Ewald ; but it neither cor- 
responds sufficiently with the words themselves (for had Paul meant that, 
he would have said distinctly and suitably: évoyoe gota Tov Oavatov Tov Kup.), 
nor with the parallel thought in ver. 29. This holds, too, against Ebrard’s 
view (Dogma v. Abendm. I. p. 126) ; each man by his sins has a share in 
causing the death of Jesus ; if now he communicates unworthily, not only 
do his other sins remain unforgiven, but there is added this fresh guilt be- 
sides, of having part in nailing Christ to the cross (which, with every other 
sin, is forgiven to the man who communicates worthily). But that would 
be surely no new guilt, but the continuance of the old ; and in this sense 
Kahnis explains it, Dogmat. I. p. 620. But to bring out this meaning, the 
apostle, if he was not to leave his words open to misunderstanding (comp. 
John iii. 36, ix. 41), must have written not évoy. éora:, but évoy. wéver or pevel. 
Olshausen again, with older expositors, thinks that our passage implies a 
powerful argument against all Zwinglian theories of a merely commemora- 
tive ordinance. This, however, is too hasty and uncertain an inference ; 
because the profanation of an acknowledged symbol, especially if it be one 
recognized in the religious consciousness of the church (suppose, ¢.g., a cru- 
cifix), does injury to the object itself represented by the symbol. Hofmann 
is not justified in disputing this. Comp. Oecolampadius, Piscator, and 
Scultetus, who adduce, as an analogous case, an injury done to the king’s 
seal or picture.‘ Riickert, on the other hand, is wrong in supposing that 
we have here a proof that the bread and wine are only symbols.? For, even 
granting that they are really the body and blood of Christ, there was ground 
enough for the apostle’s warning in the fact that his readers seemed to be 
forgetting this relationship. Our conclusion therefore is, that this passage 
in itself proves neither the one theory nor the other, as even Hofmann now 
acknowledges, although he goes on to infer from ver. 29 that Christ’s real 
body and blood are partaken of in the Sacrament. See, however, on ver. 
29, and comp. on x. 15 f. 


1 Luther’s objection to this in the Grosse 
Bekenntniss resolves itself, in truth, into 
mere hair-splitting. The argument of the 
old systematic divines againis : The object 
against which we sin must be present ; we 
sin against the body and blood of Christ; 
therefore these must be present. This con- 
clusion is incorrect, because the major pre- 
miss is so. The presence of the object ‘in 
quod delinquimus quodque indigne tracta- 
mus’”’ (Quenstedt) is not always necessary, 


and need not be a veal presence. Thus a 
man sins against the body of Christ, even 
when he sins against the sacred symbol of 
that body, and against the blood of Christ, 
in like manner. Comp. also Neander. 

2 Otherwise in his treatise vom Abendm. 
p. 286, where, on the ground of x. 3f., x. 16, 
he does not doubt that what is meant is a 
direct offence committed against the very 
things there present. 


CHAP. XI., 28, 29. 269 


Ver. 28. Aé] carrying onward : ‘‘ now, inorder not toincur this guilt, let 
a man examine himself, etc. ;” let him search into his frame of mind and 
moral condition (rv didvocay éavtov, Theodore of Mopsuestia) to see whether 
he will not partake unworthily ;? (w*) comp. dcaxpivecy, ver. 31. — kai obz7we| 
and so, after he has examined himself, and in that case. See on Rom. xi, 26. 
Every reader, not addicted to hairsplitting, would understand here of course 
that this did not apply to a case in which the result of the self-examination 
was to make the man feel himself unworthy. There wasno need, therefore, 
for Flatt and Riickert (following Lightfoot, Semler, Schulz) to take doxiudé. 
as meaning to make qualified, which it never does, not even in Gal. vi. 4 3 2 
Cor. xiii. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — avOpwroc] as iv. 1. 

Ver. 29. Since avaziwe is spurious (see the critical remarks), 6 éofiwv x. 
nivov might be understood absolutely : the eater and drinker, who turns the 
Supper, as was actually done at Corinth, vv. 22, 34, into a banquet and ca- 
rousal. This was the view I held myself formerly, taking w7 dcaxpivor in the 
sense : because he does not, etc., as in Rom. iv. 19. But after ver. 28, whose 
éobiew x. rivery finds expression here again, it is simpler and most in accord- 
ance with the text to render : He who eats and drinks (the bread and the 
cup), eats and drinks a judgment to himself, if he does not, etc.,” so that in this 
way pu? d:axpivwy x.t.A2. conditions the predicate, and is not amodal definition 
of the subject. The apostle might have written simply kpiva yap éavr@ éobier 
x. wivet, uw) Ovakp. t. o.; but the circumstantial description of the subject of 
the sentence for the second time by 6 ydp éofiwy x. rivev carries a certain 
solemnity with it, making one feel the risk incurred by going on to eat and 
drink. — xpiua éavr6 x.t.2.] aconcrete expression (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16) of the 
thought : he draws down judicial sentence upon himself by his eating and drink- 
ing. 'The power to effect this turns on the évoyog éorac x.7.A., ver. 27 3 and 
therefore nothing is decided here against the symbolical interpretation of 
the words of institution. That the xpiva is a penal one, is implied in the 
context (Rom. ii. 2, iii. 8, xili. 2; Gal. v.10). The absence of the article, 
again, denotes not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general 
without any limiting definition. From vv. 30 and 31 we see that Paul was 
thinking, in the first place, of temporal judgments as the penalty of un- 
worthy communicating, and that such judgments appeared to him as chas- 
tisements employed by God to avert from the offender eternal condemna- 
tion. With respect to the dativus incommodi éavré, comp. Rom. xiii. 2. — 
uy Ovaxpivor rd cGual if he does not form a judgment upon (so dvaxp., Vulgate, 
. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, de Wette, Weiss) the body, i.e. the body 
kar’ &oxhv, the sacred body, into communion with which he enters by par- 
taking of the Supper, and respecting which, therefore, he ought to form 
a judgment of the most careful kind, such as may bring him into full and 
deep consciousness of its sacredness and saving significance (on saxp., 
comp. xiv. 29 ; Matt. xvi. 3). Comp. Chrysostom : p7 é&erafor, py évvodr, 
O¢ xpy, TO wéyeBoc Tov TpoKeruévor, uy AoyiCbuEvog Tov byKov THe Owpeac. Usually 

1 Confession is an institution of the church, assurance that one does not eat and drink 


meant to aidin carrying out this ruleofthe | unworthily, 
apostle’s, in which the absolution gives 


270 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(so too Ewald, Kahnis, Hofmann) commentators have taken dzaxp. in the 
sense of to distinguish (iv. 7), and have rendered accordingly : if he (or, 
following the reading which puts dvagiog after rivwv: because he) does not 
distinguish the body ef Christ from common food. Hofmann, again, sce- 
ing that we have not rod Kupiov along with 7d céua holds it more correct to 
render : if he does not distinguish the body, which he who eats this bread par- 
takes of, from the mere bread itself. Both these ways of explaining the word, 
which come in substance to the same thing, proceed upon the supposition 
either that the body of Christ is that with which we enter into fellowship by 
partaking of the symbol (which is the true view), or that it is partaken of 
‘‘in, with, and under” the bread (Lutheran doctrine), 07 by means of the 
transubstantiation of the bread (Roman Catholic doctrine). But in ver. 31, 
where dvexpivouev is taken up again from our passage, the word means to 
judge, not to distinguish, and we must therefore keep to that meaning? here 
also. —It was needless to add xa? rd aiva to 7d cua, because the cdua is re- 
garded as that which had suffered death by the shedding of its blood ; comp. 
ver. 26, also x. 17. The twofoldness of the elements has its rational signifi- 
cance only in the equal symbolism of the two ; apart from that symbol- 
ism, reference to it would be inappropriate, since, objectively, they cannot 
be separated. 

Ver. 30. Proof of that xpiua éavré . . . mivec from the present experience 
of the Corinthians themselves. — Paul knew that there were at this time 
many cases of sickness, and not a few of death (xouwovta), among them ; and 
he saw in this a divine chastisement for their unworthy use of the Lord’s 
Supper. The explanation which refers this to moral weakness and deadness 
(Valckenaer, Morus, Krause, Eichhorn) is not to be rejected (as by Riickert) 
on the ground that this moral sickness and deadness must have been repre- 
sented as the cause of the unworthy participation (for, from the Pauline 
standpoint, they might quite as well be regarded as its consequence, see 
Rom. i. 24 ff.). But it is to be set aside, because such a sense must have 
been suggested by the context, whereas there is not the remotest hint of it, 
either by itself or in connection with the physical interpretation (Olshausen). 
— xoudvtra] dormiunt, i.e. are dead. Comp., regarding this euphemistic al- 
lusion, what is said on xv. 18. Elsewhere in the N. T. we find the perfect 
or aorist. But comp. Lachmann’s reading in 1 Thess. iv. 13. — Itis impos- 
sible to establish a definite distinction of idea between dofeveic and appworor. 
Grotius and Bengel hold the latter to mean more than the former ; Wetstein 
and Tittmann again (Synon. p. 76) differ from them in this. Both words 
denote want of strength from sickness. 

Vv. 31, 82. Lf, on the other hand, we judged ourselves (submitted our own 
condition to moral criticism ; parallel to doxiudlevw éavrdv, ver. 28), then should 
we not receive any judgment (jadgment of condemnation, ver. 29) ; but when 


1So Luther’s gloss: who handles and _ inver. 31): a judgment... if he does not 
deals with Christ’s body as if he cared no Jorm a judgment. Hence there is the less 
more for it than for common food. warrant in the text for the meaning “‘ dis- 
2 Which stands in significant correspond-  ¢tinguish.” 


ence with xpcua (comp. too, the oxymoron 


CHAP, XI., 33, 34. RiL 


we do receive a judgment (in point of fact, by temporal sufferings), we are 
chastened (punished in a disciplinary way) by the Lord (by God), in order 
that we may not be condemned (namely, at the last judgment) with the world 
(along with the anti-Christian part of mankind. Note the oxymoron : 
dwekp. Kptv. kataxpi0., answering significantly to the mutual relation of kpipa 
and daxpivwv in ver. 29. In both passages we have the same sort of pointed 
alliteration, corresponding to their internal connection (which is plainly 
enough marked by the dca roiro, ver. 30, and dé, ver. 31, although Hofmann 
denies it). — As to the divine chastisement, which les within the sphere of 
the divine redemptive agency (Heb. xii. 6; Tit. 11. 12; also1 Tim. 1.20; 2 
Tim. li. 25), comp. J. Miiller, v. d. Siinde, I. p. 339 f., ed. 5. — The use of 
the jirst person gives to the sentence the gentler form of a general statement, 
not referring merely to the state of things at Corinth, but of universal 
application. 

Ver. 33. Conclusion from this proposition, general in its tenor, for the 
conduct of the readers at the love-feast, when they came together to keep it 
(cic rd dayeiv, not belonging to add. évdéy.). — adeAgot pov] ‘* perterrefactos 
rursum hac blanda compellatione solatur,” Grotius. —daAajr. éixdéyeobe] wait 
for one another (‘‘ invicem exspectate,” Vulg.), xvi. 11, so that no one idcov 
deixvov tpodauBaver. This closing admonition corresponds to the censure, 
with which the section began in ver. 21, and there is therefore no need for 
departing from this rendering, which is adopted by Luther, Erasmus, and 
the majority of commentators. Theophylact : deuxviwr, br Kowd eioe Ta 
éxeioe elodepoueva, Kal dei avauévery tHv Kownv ovvéAevorv. Others translate : 
Receive ye one another, namely, convivio, as a contrast to despising the other 
guests, and keeping them from sharing in what you yourselves have to 
give. So Pott, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann, following Mosheim, 
Michaelis, Morus, Schulz, Rosenmiiller. But in the N. T. éxdéyec@ac (xvi. 
11) means always evspectare (comp. Soph. Phil. 123 ; Polyb. xx. 4. 5, iil. 
45. 6; Apollod. i. 9. 27; also in Plutarch, al.), although in classical 
writers, as well as in the LXX. and Apocrypha, the meaning excipere is far 
more frequent. The latter sense Paul would have expressed by the simple 
déxecIa, or by rpooAauBavecbar (Rom. xiv. 1). 

Ver. 34. To satisfy hunger, is a thing to be done at home. The Agapae 
should not be used as meals for such material purposes ; they have a higher 
significance. Comp. ver. 22. Others take it : ‘‘If any one has such keen 
hunger that he cannot wait for the distribution, let him rather take a pre- 
vious meal at home” (Billroth ; comp. Erasmus, Paraph.). But how much 
of this is arbitrarily imported into the text !—ra 68 Aourd| What has not yet 
been regulated in this section, vv. 17484. The reference is to matters con- 
nected with the love-feasts ; not indeed ofa doctrinal kind, but, as the word 
dvatdccecbat is enough of itself to show, pertaining to outward order and 
arrangements, vii. 17, ix. 14, xvi. 1; Gal. iii. 19; Tit.1.5. A passage taken 
advantage of by Roman Catholics in support of their doctrine of tradition. 
And, no doubt, it does serve to establish in general the possibility of the 
existence of apostolic traditions ; but in each particular case in which such 
traditions are asserted, the burden of bringing forward the proof lies 


202 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


always upon those who make the assertion, and it can never be produced, 
— wc av] whensoever I shall have come ; in the temporal sense = stmulatque. 
See on Phil. ii. 23, and Hartung, II. p. 289. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(Q') ** The woman is the glory of the man.” Ver. 7. 


The sense may be further expanded thus: The woman isin a certain re- 
spect subordinate to the man. She is not designed to reflect the glory of God 
as a ruler, but that of her husband as head of the household. She receives and 
reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station ; he- 
comes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honour 
which may belong to her husband. Thus understood, the passage is no deroga- 
tion to the sex, but rather a precise statement in accordance not only with Serip- 
ture, but with the results of all human experience ; and its position, united 
with the other teachings of this pericope, is a sure guarantee for woman’s dig- 
unity, happiness, and honour. 


(x!) Mosaic account of the creation. Vv. 8, 9. 


It is customary to speak of the Old Testament as mythical and fabulous, or at 
least allegorical. But the Apostle refers to the Mosaic narrative of man’s crea- 
tion as being literal fact. How then can any one who believes in the inspira- 
tion of the Apostles deny the divine authority of the Pentateuch, or confine that 
authority only to its doctrinal and preceptive statements ? 


(s') The teaching of nature. Vv. 14, 15. 


Some explain the Apostle’s question as referring to the original course of 
nature. It has made a visible distinction between the sexes by covering the 
woman’s head with more abundant hair. This teaches that the God of nature 
designs the sexes to be distinguished in the most conspicuous portion of the 
body. Short hair belongs to a man, long hair to a woman ; and it is unnatural 
and disgraceful for either sex in this respect to assume the appearance of the 
other. Others suppose that the word refers to the instinctive feelings which 
arise from nature’s laws, and which are largely determined by education and 
habit. In this sense an Eastern woman feels impelled, whenever surprised by 
strangers, to cover her face. This to her is an instinctive impulse, yet it would 
not be so in a European or American woman. _ But Paul, writing to women 
of his own age and training, was sure of an affirmative response. F. W. Robert- 
son well says: ‘‘ Fanaticism defies nature. Christianity refines it and respects 
it. Christianity does not destroy our natural instincts, but giNpE them a high- 
er and nobler direction:”’ . 


(t!) ** We have no such custom.” Ver. 16. 


What is thiscustom? Most of the recent critics (Stanley, Kling, Beet, Canon 
Evans, etc.) agree with Meyer in referring it to the contentiousness just men- 
tioned. But besides the fact that ‘‘if any one be contentious” is not a custom, 
there is force in Alford’s statement: ‘‘ Surely it would be very unlikely that, 


NOTES. R73 


after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up 
all by merely censuring a fault common to their behavior on this and on all 
the other matters in dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify 
the conclusion. But for the weighty names on the other side it would seem 
hardly to admit of a question, that the custom here disavowed was the practice 
of women praying uncovered. He cuts off all further disputation on the mat- 
ter by appealing to universal Christian usage.’’—Argument is useless with the 
contentious ; they must be silenced by authority. It must be a very clear case 
of conscientious duty which will justify a man in departing from the estab- 
lished usages of the church. 


(u!) The use of dissensions. Ver. 19. 


It is a great consolation, Hodge says, to know that dissensions, whether in 
church or state, are not fortuitous, but are ordered by the providence of God, 
and are designed as storms for the purpose of purification. Certain it is that 
the prevalence of heresies has been the occasion of bringing out more fully and 
plainly the faith of the church from the Apostle’s age to our own. 


| (v1) «‘ I received from the Lord.’ Ver. 23. 

Meyer’s reasoning supposes an unusual refinement in Paul's use of the Greek 
prepositions, and, besides, the dvé may have been chosen to avoid the triple 
repetition of zapa. The form of the revelation cannot be determined, but that 
it was directly from the Lord seems certain, and this fact is no small testimony 
to the importance of the ordinance, thus specifically made known to the 
Apostle. 


(w!) The worthy communicant. Ver. 28. 


No better or briefer statement of what is required on this point can be found 
than is given in the answer of the Heidelberg Catechism to the question (81), 
Who ought to come to the table of the Lord? <‘* Those who are grieved with 
themselves on account of their sins, and yet trust that the same are taken away 
from them, and their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death 
of Christ, and who also earnestly desire more and more to strengthen their 
faith and better their life.’’ 


Qt4 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 2. iti bre] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. (who brackets 
ite, however), Scholz, Rick. Tisch. with A BC D E L:8, min. and several vss. 
and Fathers. The 67 alone (Elz. with F G min. Syr. Erp. Clar. Germ. Oec. 
Ambrosiast.), and the weakly attested ore alone (which Billroth and Ewald pre- 
fer), are two different attempts to help out the construction, whose difficulty 
leads Reiche again to defend the Recepta. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Recepta 
"TInoovv and Kvpiov Inoovv, which Reiche upholds, read ’Iyjoot¢ and Képzog "Incote, 
with Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., following A BC 8, min. and several vss. and 
Fathers. The accusatives are the work of copyists altering the oratio directa, 
which struck them as unusual. — Ver. 9. In place of the second airo, A B, min. 
Vulg. Clar. Germ. and Latin Fathers read évi. So, rightly, Lachm. Rick. Tisch.; 
avrw has crept in after the preceding. — After odwatoc in ver. 12, Elz. has roo 
évéc, against greatly preponderating testimony. A gloss. — Ver. 13. eic¢ év rveipa] 
Many various readings ; the best accredited is év zvevua (B C D* F G 8, 17, 73, 
80, with several vss. and Fathers). So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Reiche. The in- 
sertion of the cic arose from comparing the clause with the first half of the 
verse. Then, according as the words were understood to refer to the Supper 
or not, arose the readings méua (with or without eic) instead of mvevua, and 
Egwtiobnuev (said of baptism, as the Greek Fathers were accustomed to use it) 
instead of éror. — Ver. 31. kpeittova] A BC &, min. Syr. Aeth. Vulg. ms. Or. 
{twice) read weiGova. So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. But while xpeirrova might easily 
appear a doubtful expression in itself, and even objectionable as implying the 
contrast of ‘‘ worse,’’ weifova, on the other hand, was very naturally suggested 
by xiii. 13, xiv. 5. 


ConTENTS.— Concerning the Spirit’s gifts... The fundamental character- 
istic of speaking in the Spirit is the confession of Jesus as the Lord (ver. 
3) ; but the especial utterances of the Spirit, which are given to individu- 


1 Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 646 f., 
holds that the abuse of the glossolalia in 
Corinth, which has certainly given occasion 


lalia, and that in a high degree. Riéabiger, 
too, agrees in substance with Baur, assum- 
ing, as he does, an opposition between the 


to this section of the Epistle, had arisen in 
the party-interest of the Petrine Christians 
in opposition to the Pauline. The former, 
he maintains, had. brought the yA. Aad. to 
bear against the latter, denying to Paul the 
apostolic character and consequently the 
possession of the mvedua ayvov. But there is 
no trace of this whatever in the apostle’s 
treatment of the subject; for the word 
thrown out at vii. 40, in connection with a 
totally different occasion, has no bearing at 
all upon this question ; and xiv. 6 and 18 
take for granted that his readers admitted 
that Paul himself had the gift of the glosso- 


Pauline rpodyrevovtes and the Petrine yAdée- 
gats AaAovvtes. But there is not the slightest 
support in the text either, in general, for 
connecting the subject in hand with the 
state of parties at Corinth, or, in particular, 
for ascribing the glossolalia to any one 
special party (Dahne, ¢.g., regards it as a 
piece of Alexandrian fanaticism among the 
Christ-party). Van Hengel’s conjecture, also 
(Gave d. talen, p. 111 f.), that Apollos had 
brought the glossolalia to Corinth, where it 
had been abused and had degenerated, 
lacks all definite foundation. 


GIPA POO XT gle ae a7) 


als for the welfare of the community (vv. 7-10), differ one from another 
(vv. 4-6). The Giver of all gifts, however, is one and the same Spirit ; for 
Christians form an organic whole, like the limbs of one body, so that none 
of them ought either to judge himself in a depreciatory spirit (vv. 11-20), 
or to ignore the need and worth of those with fewer or lower gifts (vv. 21- 
30. Still there ought to be a striving after the more excellent charismata ; 
and Paul will show his readers the best kind and mode of thus striving 
(ver. 31). —The peculiar difficulty attaching to this whole section is very 
truly described by Chrysostom : roito drav Td ywpidv odddpa éotiv doadéc? THY 
dé aodgeay 47 TOV Tpaypdtov ayvold TE Kal EAAELWLC ToL, THY TOTE 
pév ovuBavertor, viv dé ov yivopévur. 

Ver. 1. Aé] leads over from the matter previously discussed to another, in 
connection with which also abuses had crept into the church (see on xi. 18). 
We are warranted in assuming that the discussion of such a subject, so 
comprehensive and entering so much into details, was occasioned by ques- 
tions put in the letter from Corinth (vil. 1, viii. 1). — rév rvevpartixdr] is to 
be taken (with Chrysostom, Luther, and most expositors) as neuter, stating 
the theme in a quite general way : On the forms of action which proceed from 
the Holy Spirit and make manifest His agency in the life of the church. The 
speaking with tongues is specially taken up only in chap. xiv., so that it is 
a mistake to regard rvevywar. as referring to this alone (Storr, Heydenreich, 
Billroth, Baur in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1838, p. 644, and Wieseler in the same, 
p. 711, also Ewald). The rvevwarcxd are in their nature the same as the 
yapicouara, ver. 4. Other interpreters make it masculine (Grotius, Ham- 
mond, Clericus, Locke, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Heydenreich, 
Ewald, Hofmann, also David Schulz, d. Geistesgaben der ersten Christen, 
p-. 163; and Hilgenfeld, die Glossolalie, 1850, p. 16) : ‘‘ concerning the in- 
spired, whether genuine or not ; Ewald renders: ‘‘concerning the men of 
the Spirit” (speakers with tongues). But in xiv. 1 we have the theme re- 
CuITINg as Td TrvevwaTixd. — ov OéAw bu. ayvoeiv] I will not leave you in ignorance. 
Comp. x. 1 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18. Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it aptly : 6é2o 
apac Kal Tov TvevwaTiKOy yapiopdtov eidévae THY TagLY, GoTEe BobAopai TL Kai TeEpi 
TOUTwY ElTErV. 

Ver. 2. Reason (comp. on oid, ver. 8) why he wishes to instruct them con- 
cerning the mvevuarinad. The pneumatic condition into which they had 
entered as Christians was, of course, an entirely new one to men who had 
been heathen, entirely without precedent or analogy in the experiences of 
their former sad estate,—all the more, therefore, requiring to be subjected 
to a trustworthy and correct judgment. — The construction, when we adopt 
the reading 671, dre, is simply this: the object-sentence begins indeed with 
é7z, but instead of ending with ar7yeobe, or repeating 7re before araydu., runs 
off into the participle,—an anakoluthic use of the és not uncommon also in 
classic writers, after parenthetic clauses, even when but short, have inter- 
vened. See Kriiger on Thuc. iv. 37; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. 87 B ; 
Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 481 D. ‘Translate : Ye know that, at the time when 
ye were heathen, ye were led away to the dumb idols, in whatever way people led 
you. Buttmann (newt. Gr. p. 329 [E. T. 383]) holds that the sentence after 








276 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
bre 2Ovn Fire passes with d¢ into an indirect question. But d¢ dv jyeohe, from 
its position between rpoc r. eid. 7. ad. and arayéu., can only be a parenthetic 
clause. In that case, too, azay. would be cumbrous and dragging at the 
end of the verse ; it must convey a weighty closing thought, to which é¢ av 
iyyecbe serves as modal definition. Hofmann, although not reading 67, dre, 
but simply 67 with Elz. (which in fact does away of itself with all real 
difficulty), has twisted and obscured the whole passage in a very unhappy 
way.’— ére évy wre] A reminder to his readers of their sad roré, to which 
Paul often turns back their eyes from their happy viv (Eph. ii. 2 f., 11, 18, 
v. 8; Col. i. 21, iii. 7; Rom. xi. 80). — po¢ ra eidwAa] namely, in order to 
worship them, sacrifice to them, invoke them, inquire of them, and the like. 
— ra agwva] (Plat. Pol. I. p. 336 D, and often elsewhere ; Dem. 292. 6. 294. 
19 ; 2 Mace. iii. 24) impresses on the readers that idols, which were them- 
selves dumb (comp. Hab. ii. 18 ; 38 Macc. iv. 16), could produce no pneu- 
matic speaking. Notice the emphatic repetition of the article. —d¢ dv 
jyece] as ye were at any time led. Regarding this dv of repetition, see 
Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 85; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 186 f. [E. T. 216] ; 
‘comp. on Acts ii. 45. — arayduevor| becoming led away. 'The force of the amé 
is not that of removal from the normal condition of the natural knowledge 
of God (Rom. i. 19 ff.), an interpretation which would need to be suggested 
by the context ; but it serves vividly to set forth the result. The consequence 
of the dyecfa:, namely, was the ardyecba, the being involuntarily drawn away 
from the surroundings in which they were actually placed to the temples, 
statues, altars, etc. of the idols. We may take it for certain, from Paul’s 
views of heathenism (x. 20; Eph. ii. 2), that he thought of Satan as the 
leading power. Hilgenfeld aptly compares the passage in Athenagoras, 
Legat. pro Christ. p. 29, ed. Col.: of pév rept ta eidwia abrovg éEAKovtec of 
Caiwovéc clow x.t.A. The opposite is rvebuate adyecbat, Rom. vill. 14 ; Gal. v. 
18 ; Matt. iv. 1. Others make it : @ sacerdotibus (Valckenaer, al.), and the 
like. — We may note further both that homoioteleuta, such as oidate, ore bre 
. #7e, occur even in the best writers, showing that the resemblances of 
sound were not offensive to them (Lobeck, ad Aj. 61, Paral. p. 53 ff.), and 
also that the subject in hand is brought all the more vividly and impres- 
sively home by the adnominatio, jjyecbe, amayéuevoe (Bremi, ad Lys. I. Hae. 
vi. p. 209). 


1 Hofmann insists, namely (1st), on read- 
ing oiéa te instead of oidSare, and (2d) ws 
avyyeode instead of ws av nyeoe and (3d) on 
taking ote éOvy nre as: because ye were 
heathen, and that as specifying the reason 
for what follows, in which, for the sake of 
emphasis, mpos . . . adwvais put before the 
es. But how involved the whole general 
structure of the sentence becomes in that 
way ! How wholly uncalled for, neverthe- 
less, and inappropriate would be the invest- 
ing of the quite superfluous (quite superfiu- 
ous, to wit, as specifying a reason) “‘ because 
ye were heathen,’ with all the emphasis of 
being put first in a hyperbaton which is, 


moreover, doubled! And how strange the 
choice of the compound avyyeode, since it 
does not (as Hofmann supposes) convey the 
notion of whither (which is expressed by 
mp6s), but that of upward, as avayew always 
means to lead up/ The 7é, too, after oida, 
would not be suitable even in a logical 
point of view (see note on ver. 3). Laurent, 
in his neut. Stud. p. 182, agrees with Hof- 
mann in so far that he also reads as aviy- 
eo6e instead of ws av HyeoOe. Forthe rest, he 
retains oiéare, and neither reads ore nor ort, 
dre, but simply ore, which is supported by 
very slender evidence. 


CHAP. XII, 3. QvG 

Ver. 3. Ard] therefore, because the experiences of spiritually gifted men 
could not be known to you in your heathen state,’ and you have conse- 
quently all the more need of sound instruction on the subject, therefore I 
give you to know: the fundamental characteristic of speaking by the Spirit 
is, that Jesus is not execrated, but confessed as Lord. Paul expresses this in the 
two parallel thoughts : that the former, the evecration, comes from the lips 
of no inspired person ; and that the latter, the confession of the Lord, can 
only be uttered by the power of the Holy Spirit. Both the negative and the 
positive marks are thereby given ; and it is arbitrary to lay the whole stress, 
as Billroth and Riickert do, upon the second half, and to regard the first as 
almost superfluous and a mere foil to the second. Paul must, moreover, 
have had his own special reasons for placing such a general guiding rule at 
the head of his whole discussion in answer to the question, Who in gen- 
eral is to be held an inspired speaker? Among all the different forms and 
even perversions of the gift of speaking in the Spirit at Corinth, men may 
have been divided upon the question, Who was properly to be regarded as 
speaking by the Spirit, and who not ? and against all arbitrary, envious, 
exclusive judgments on this point the apostle strikes all the more powerfully, 
the more he brings out here the width of the specific field of speaking in the 
Spirit, and the more simply and definitely he lays down at the same time its 
characteristics. To find any special reference here to the speaking with 
tongues—and in particular to go so far in that direction as to assume (Hof- 
mann, comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 309) that the first clause guards against 


- 1 Similarly de Wette ; comp. Bengel, and, 
yet earlier, Luther’s gloss. Osiander drags 
in a contrast between the one Lord of the 
Christians and the many xvpiovs of heathen- 
ism. Moreover, widely differing statements 
as to the connection are to be found among 
interpreters. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
and Theophylact trace it back in a perfect- 
ly arbitrary way to the contrast between 
the unconscious mania of heathen inspira- 
tion and the conscious inspiration of Chris- 
tians. Comp. Neander: ‘‘because it is 
now otherwise with you, and you have 
become free organs of the Holy Spirit.’ 
Kling (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 486) 
makes it: “that you may not suffer your- 
selves to be again carried away to blind 
worship of an unintelligible phenome- 
non” (?). Theodoret holds that what is re- 
ferred to is the contrast between the éa- 
dwvia of heathenism and the cuudwria in 
Christianity. In like manner Rabiger: 
‘because your heathen cultus did not rest 
upon a common Divine Spirit ruling in you 
all, I make it known to you that there is 
such a principle in Christianity in the 
mvedua @cov.”” But in this way the essential 
point on which the question hinges is only 
gained by abstraction out of what Paul actu- 
ally says, and thatin the interest of the 


assumption that he designs to secure for 
the glossolalia the respect due to it as 
against the opposition of the Pauline party. 
Paul is here making known to his readers 
the criterion of Christian inspiration as re- 
gards its confession, and that for this reason 
(8.6), because they, as formerly serving 
dumb idols, had allthe more need of this 
yvwpigev, The words before us yield no 
more than this. Ewald also imports too 
much into them: You will not surely wish 
back your former heathen days;.. . itis 
in the light of that old state of things that 
one first really comes rightly to understand 
and feel the value of Christianity, and so 
forth. Hofmann shapes the connection in 
accordance with his construction of the 
text in ver. 2: because Paul does not wish 
to leave his readers in the dark epi 7, 
mvevuatikoyv; and because, on the other 
hand, he knows what their old life had 
been as respects divine service, therefore 
he gives them the following instructions. 
This is logically incorrect. For the second 
element in this case would not be one 
brought forward in addition to the first (ré), 
but one already lying at the root of it; and 
Paul must therefore have written, not otéa 
re (as Hofmann reads), but oida yap, 


av8 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


anxiety in presence of the yAéooa¢ Aakeiv, and the second against undervalu- 
ing the xpogyreteev—comes just to this, that Paul has expressed himself in a 
highly unintelligible way, and arbitrarily anticipates the elucidations in 
detail which follow. — év rveipate Ocov] so that the Holy Spirit is the ele- 
ment which pervades his inner life, and in which the Aaieiv takes place. 
Comp. on Rom. viii. 15 ; Matt. xxii. 43. — Aar@v] uttering himself, speaking ; 
Aéyet, on the other hand, has reference to the object of the utterance. Comp. 
on Rom. ii. 19 ; John vill. 43; Schulz, Geistesgaben, p. 94 ff. — avdfeua 
"Inoovc| se. éori, accursed (see on Rom. ix. 3; Gal. i. 8), fallen into eternal 
perdition is Jesus! This is the anti-Christian (especially the Jewish) con- 
fession ; the Christian is : Kipio¢ Ijcotc, Jesus is Lord! Comp. Phil. ii. 
11. Why did Paul not say Xpioré¢ ? Because, from its original appeliative 
meaning, it would not have suited the first clause (avd0.); in the second, 
again, its appellative meaning is contained in Képoc ; and in both it was 
essential to name the historical Person who was the Messiah of the Chris- 
tians’ faith as exalted to be the civOpovoc of God. Itis self-evident, we may 
add, that Paul regarded the Kipsoc "Inoovc as the constant watchword of the 
believing heart, and the keynote of inspired speech. (x’) ‘‘ Paulus loquitur 
de confessione perseveranti et in tota doctrina,’”” Melanchthon. — Regarding 
the confession itself, comp. 1 John iv. 1 f., where the proposition is of sub- 
stantially the same import, only still more directly aimed against false 
teachers. 

Ver. 4. Although the fundamental character of all inspired speaking is not 
in any case different : there are, notwithstanding, distributions of grace-gifts 
(‘‘ divisiones gratiarum,” Vulg.), but zt is the same Spirit (from whom they 
proceed). Comp. Heb. ii. 4, and Liinemann upon that passage. Xdpoua,’ 
a specifically N. T. word, foreign to ordinary Greek, is used here in the 
narrower sense (for in the wider sense, every manifestation of divine grace 
—in particular, every part of the Christian possession of salvation, and every 
activity of the Christian life—is a ydp:oua). It means any extraordinary 
faculty, which operated for the furtherance of the welfare of the Christian 
community, and which was itself wrought by the grace of God, through the 
power of the Holy Spirit, in special individuals, in accordance, respectively, | 
with the measure of their individual capacities, whether it were that the 
Spirit infused entirely new powers, or stimulated those already existing to 
higher power and activity, Rom. xii. 6 ff. Regarding dcarpeouc, distribution, 
comp. ver. 11; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 55; Plat. Soph. p. 267 D, Phaedr. p. 266 
B, Polit. p. 275 E ; Polyb. ii. 48. 10 ; Ecclus. xiv. 15 ; Judith ix. 4. The 
charismatic endowment is not something undivided ; we do not find a unity 
and equality among the gifted, but there are distributiones donorum ; so that 
one has this peculiar yapcwa, and the other that, dealt out to him as hisown 
appointed share. If we take dca:pécere to mean differences (Beza, and many 
others, including de Wette, Ewald), this is equally lawful so far as linguistic 


1Comp. Krumm, De notionib. psychol. xapiouara and the extraordinary, see Con- 
Paulin., Gissae 1858, p. 385 ff. As regards the stitt. ap. viii. 1.1 ff. 
difference between the general Christian 


CHAP. XII., 5-7. R79 


usage goes (Plat. Soph. p. 267 B, Prot. p. 358 A), but does not correspond 
to the correlative purposely chosen by the apostle in ver. 11, dacpoiv. 

Vv. 5, 6. Continuation of the representation of the difference and yet rel- 
ative unity of the yapiouara, illustrated in two characteristic forms of their 
action, in so far, namely, as they present themselves practically as dvaxoviat 
and as évepyfuara. These are not merely different names for the charismata 
(as the Greek Fathers held), nor yet distinct species of them (Estius and 
others), but different forms of expression in which they show themselves 
and appear to the observer. — And there are distributions of services, but it is 
the same Lord (Christ as Lord of the church) who is served thereby. To 
make the dvaxoviac refer to the specific offices in the church, ver. 28 (Beza, 
Grotius, Estius, Olshausen, and many others), is to narrow the meaning too 
much ; for in accordance with the first sentence, and in accordance gener- 
ally with the comprehensive scope of the whole three sentences, all 
charismata must be meant, in so far, namely, as all, according to the relation 
of their exercise to Christ, manifest themselves as services rendered.—‘' And 
there are distributions of workings (deeds of power), but tt is the same God 
who works them all (évepyguara) in all (in all who are acting in the power 
of the Spirit).” ’Hvepy. is as little to be taken in a special sense here as 
diax. in the previous sentence ; it is neither to be referred to the work- 
ing of miracles alone (so most interpreters on the ground of ver. 10, 
where, however, it is joined with duvdu.), nor to the healings of the sick (so 
Olshausen, quite arbitrarily). No, ald charismata may manifest their oper- 
ation in deeds (comp. on évepyfuara, Polyb. ii. 42. 7, iv. 8. 7; Diod. iv. 51), 
whether these be miraculous or not. 


Remarx.—The Divine Trinity is here indicated in an ascending climax (comp. 
on Eph. iv. 6), in such a way that we pass from the Spirit, who bestows the 
gifts, to the Lord, who is served by means of them, and finally to God, who, as 
the absolute First Cause and Possessor of all Christian powers, works the entire 
sum of charismatic deeds in all thus endowed. This passage has always (from 
Chrysostom and Theodoret onwards) been rightly adduced in opposition to 
anti-Trinitarian error (comp. too Calovius against the Socinians) ; but it is to 
be observed also here, that with allthe equality of nature and inseparable unity 
(2 Cor. xiii. 13) of the Three, still no dogmatic canon can do away with the 
relation of subordination which is also manifest. Comp. Gess, v. d. Person 
Christi, p. 158 f.; Kahnis, Dogm, III. p. 206 ff, 


Ver. 7. Aé] leading on to the like destination of all the gifts. The empha- 
sis lies on rpd¢ 7d cvudépov. Thisis the aim, which is the same in the case 
of every one who receives a gift. Zo each one is the manifestation of the 
Spirit (his making known the Holy Spirit to others by charismatic acts) 
given with a view to benefit (in order to be of use, see xiv. 12). The genitive 
is to be taken in this objective sense (with Billroth, Schulz, Geistseg. p. 164, 
and Hofmann), because there exists no reason here for departing from the 
similar meaning of ¢avép. tic dAnf. in 2 Cor. iv. 2; and we have no other 
instance of the use of the word except in the Fathers. Calvin, Riickert, de 
Wette, and most expositors understand it subjectively : the self-revelation of 


280 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

the Spirit. Even on the first interpretation there is not too much concession 
to independent human activity (in opposition to de Wette), as is plain from 
the very idea of the didorat. 

Ver. 8 ff. Now one man may receive one, and another another endowment 
from the same Spirit. The following nine charismata, enumerated in a 
preliminary way up to ver. 10 (besides which, others are afterwards men- 
tioned, ver. 28), are divided into three classes, which cannot, however, 
correspond to the three diaipécecc, vv. 4-6, because there each sentence 
comprises all charismata. The evternal division is distinctly marked by 
Paul himself in this way, namely, that he notes the transition to a new cate- 
gory by érépw’ (while for subdivision within the classes he uses a/A), thus : 
(1) ver. 8, by © pév ; (2) ver. 9, by érépw dé 5 (8) ver. 10, by érépw dé The 
logical division again, although not rigidly carried out, presents itself with- 
out constraint as follows : 


J. Charismata which have reference to intellectual power : 
1. Adyo¢ codiac. 
2. Adyo¢ yvocewe. 
II. Charismata which depend upon special energy of faith : 
1. The rioric itself. 
2. Its agency in deeds, namely, 
a. iduara. 
b. dvvapuece. 
3. Its agency in words, namely, the rpogyreia. 
4, Its critical agency, the dcaxpiore rvevp. 


III. Charismata which have reference to the yAécoa : 
1. Speaking with tongues. 
2. Interpretation of tongues.’ 


Ver. 8. 'Q vév] This is followed by 422 dé instead of 6 dé. An unexact 
expression, as in ver. 28. Comp. Xen. Anab. iii. I. 85; Hermes in Stob. 
Eel. phys. 52, p. 1082. —Aédyo¢ codiac] Discourse of wisdom, discourse the 
contents of which are cogia. The distinction drawn by many (including 
Schulz, Neander, Billroth, Olshausen, comp. also Froschammer, von d. Cha- 


1 Whether after erépw, vv. 9 and 10, we 
read 6é or not (which Lachmann brackets in 
ver. 9and deletes in ver. 10) makes no dif- 
ference atall as regards the marking of the 
divisions (in opposition to’ Hofmann); the 
divisions mark themselves by the way in 
which the érépw stands out from the many 
repetitions of aAAw. In several cases the 
6é too, after aAdAw, is wanting in important 
witnesses. 

2 Other modes of division may be seen in 


Krumm, /.c., who bases his division on the 
categories mvedua, kapdia, voids; de Wette 
renounces any arrangement; Hofmann 
divides according to the categories of the 
cognitive faculty (Ady. cod., and Ady. yveaews) 
of the volitional faculty (miorts, tauara, duva- 
pecs), and of the power of the Holy Spirit 
(rpopyteiak.t.A.). Bengel putsits aptly : ‘‘ d: 
étépw: étépw: huic, alteri, alteri,p—genera 
tria.”,-—The distinction between II. and ITI. 
arises from the fact that the yA®aoar were 


Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 477 ff. ; Engl- 
mann, von d. Charismen, 1858, who, how- 
ever, divides them into oficial and non- 
oficial, which does not correspond with 
the conception and nature of the gifts; 


an entirely peculiar xépicma, in connection 
with which the agency of the vots was 
absent. In ver. 28 also the glossolalia is 
ranked in a class by itself. 


OHAP. XIT.5. 9: 281 
rismen, 1850, p. 28 ff.) between this and Adyoc yvécewc, according to which 
the former is a more practical, the latter a more theoretical method of teach- 
ing (Bengel, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt reverse it, comp. Cornelius a Lapi- 
de), is an unlikely one, seeing that the separation between theory and prac- 
tice is not in keeping with the nature of inspired discourse. The more 
correct view is indicated by ii. 6 f. compared with xiii. 2 ; codia, namely, is 
the higher Christian wisdom (see on ii. 6, comp. Eph. i. 17) in and by itself, 
so that discourse, which enunciates its doctrines (mysteries), elucidates, 
applies them, etc., is Adyo¢ cogiac. This, however, does not yet imply the 
deep and thorough knowledge of these doctrines, the speculative insight 
into, and apprehension and elaboration of, their connection, of their 
grounds, of their deeper ideas, of their proofs, of their ends, etc., and 
a discourse which treats of these matters is Adyo¢ yvdcewc.' Accordingly 
the codia cannot cease at the Parousia, but the yvdoue ceases, xiil. 8, because 
it belongs to the category of imperfect temporal things. (y’) Others inter- 
pret otherwise. Chrysostom,’ Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact are 
wrong in holding that the possession or the want of the teaching faculty 
makes the difference between codia and yvacrc. See, on the contrary, xiii. 
8; 2 Cor. xi. 6. Baur makes yréor¢ refer to the unfolding of the deeper 
meaning of Scripture chiefly through allegorical exegesis, which is totally 
without proof. De Wette gives no explanation : Osiander explains as we 
do. Hofmann makes oodia a property of the subject (see in opposition to 
this, ii. 6 : codiav AaAociyev), one, namely, which qualifies for right judgment 
in general ; yvouc, again, a relation to an object, namely, the thorough mas- 
tery of it in the particular instance in hand. But in that case the yvdorc 
would only be the application of the codgia in concreto, and Paul would thus 
not be adducing two yapiouara distinct in character from each other.— xara 
TO avTd rvevpal| according to the same Spirit. Comp. ver. 11, and the classical 
kata Gedy, according to divine destination (Valckenaer, ad Herod. iii. 153). 
The prepositions 0:4, card, év, are not equivalent in meaning (Riickert), but 
they so‘express the relation of the Spirit to the divine bestowal (didoraz), ac- 
cording to the different aspects of His participation therein, as to show that 
He is medians, normans, or continens, with respect to the different gifts in 
question. 

Ver. 9. ‘Erépm] not 442A again, because introducing another class which 
differs in kind from the preceding one. Comp. on Gal. i. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4 ; 
Matt. xvi. 14. — rioric] cannot be the fides salvifica in general, seeing that 
this is a possession common to all and required of every Christian, not a pe- 
culiar charisma of certain individuals. Hence it has been understood by 
most commentators, following the Fathers, (see in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 727), 


1 According to Ewald, Adyos codias em- 
braces more the intelligent explanation and 
establishment of recognized truths, with a 
view to profit in life; Adyos yywoews, More 
the treatment of obscurer and more hidden 
portions of knowledge. But ii. 6 ff. shows 
that the latter also are included under the 
codia, 


2 Paul and John, he says, had the Adyos 
codias ;' the Adyos yvarews Was possessed by 
Ot TOAAOL TAY TLOTMY, yY@ouV meV ExoVTES, SLdac- 
kecv 6€ ovTws ov Suvamevor, In like manner 
now Krumm asserts, “ yvéoews, proprieta- 
tem in argumentis, copias, in forma positam 
esse.” 


R82 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

to refer to the jides miraculosa, Matt. xvii. 20. But this is clearly too narrow 
a meaning, since not only the iduara and dvvduecc are ranked under this head, 
but also the zpodyreia and the diaxpices¢ tvevu. What is intended, therefore, 
must be a high degree of faith in Christ produced by the Holy Spirit, a hero- 
ism of faith,’ the effects of which manifested themselves in one in healings, 
in another in wonders, in a third in prophecy (Rom. xii. 6), in a fourth in 
discernment of spirits. — év 76 aiTé wv. | in the same Spirit, so that, contained 
in this Spirit, the yapioua is given, and the Spirit thus includes in Himself 
the gift. — yapiou. idu.| gifts, through means of which healings are effected. 
The instances in the Acts of the Apostles show that this does not mean 
natural skill, but cures wrought by spiritual power upon bodily maladies 
(miraculous cures). Comp. Mark xvi. 18 ; Acts iv. 80. It does not, how- 
ever, exclude the application of natural means in connection with the power 
that wrought the cure (Mark vil. 83, vill. 23 ; John ix. 6, al.; Jas. v. 14). 
The plural yapicuara points to the different kinds of sickness, for the healing 
of which different gifts were needful.” 

Ver. 10. ’Evepyfuara duvau. | workings (ver. 6) which consist in acts of power. 
It is a purely arbitrary assumption that by this is meant merely the ‘‘ potes- 
tas puniendi sontes, qualis exercita in Ananiam, etc.” (Grotius, following 
Chrysostom and Theophylact, comp. also David Schulz). They are in gen- 
eral—excluding, however, the cures already assigned to a special gift—mi- 
raculous works (comp. Acts iv. 30), which, as the effects of a will endowed 
with miraculous power, may be very various according to the different oc- 
casions which determined its action (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Heb. ii. 4; also Rom. 
xv. 19). Instances of raising the dead belonged likewise to this division.® 
— mpooyteia] prophetic speech, i.e. address flowing from revelation and im- 
pulse of the Holy Spirit, which, without being bound for that matter to a 
specific office, suddenly (xiv. 30) unveils the depth of the human heart 
(xiv. 25) and of the divine counsels (iii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 5), and thereby works 
with peculiar power for the enlightenment, admonition, and comforting of 
the faithful (xiv. 3), and so as to win over the unbelieving (xiv. 24). As 
respects the substance of what he utters, the prophet is distinguished from 
the speaker with tongues by this, that the latter utters prayers only (see be- 
low) ; and as respects form, by the fact that the prophet speaks intelligibly, 
not in an ecstatic way, consequently not without the exercise of reflective 
thought ; he differs from the d:dackxadog thus : 6 uév rpogytebwv rdvta and Tov 
avetuartoc obéyyerar’ 6 J& diWddoxwv égorlv brov Kat-é olxelag diavolag diadéyerat, 
Chrysostom on ver. 28. Comp. generally on Acts xi. 27. Liicke, Hinl. in 


1 * Ardentissima et praesentissima appre- 
hensio Dei in ipsius potissimum voluntate, 
ad effectus vel in naturae vel in gratiae 
regno singulariter conspicuos.”’—BENGEL. 

2 As Baur rationalizes all these charis- 
mata: iors being, according to him, a 
peculiarly strong faith in Divine Providence ; 
the xapioua iapatwv being the gift of praying 
with special power and fervency for the 
sick, with more or less confident promise of 


recovery, if it please God; and the évepyyjp. 
duvvéu, being proofs of extraordinary men- 
tal fortitude and energy in the interests of 
Christianity. 

3 But not instances of the casting out of 
demons (Weiss, dib/. Theol. p. 410), which 
are to be placed under the category of the 
idpara (comp. Matt. xv. 28; Luke vi. 17, ix. 
42; Acts x. 38). 


i CHAP. XII., 10. 283 
d. Offend. Joh. p. 29. Giider in Herzog’s Encyklop. XII. p. 210. f. — dia- 
Kpioee rvevu. | gudgments of spirits, 7.e. judgments which avail, and that im- 
mediately on hearing the utterances, for the preservation of the church 
from misleading influences, by informing it from what spirits the utterances 
proceeded, and by whom they were carried on in the different cases (hence 
the plural dvaxpicecc), whether consequently the Holy Spirit, or the human 
spirit merely, or even demoniac spirits (1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 1 John iv. 1) were at 
work ; Kal yap roAAy téte TOV WevdorpodyTar jv dtadopa, Tov diaBdAov dtAovEeckodvToe 
TapuvTootioa Th aAnfeia 7d Weddoc, Chrysostom. Respecting dvdkprore, comp. 
on Rom. xiv. 1. — yévy yAwoodv| The yAdooae Aadciv in Corinth was identical 
with that mentioned in Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, identical also with the speak- 
ing at Pentecost, Acts li., according to its historical substance (see on Acts, 
loc. cit.), although not according to the form preserved by. tradition in 
Luke’s account, which had made it a speaking in foreign languages, and so 
a miracle of a quite peculiar kind. Most commentators, indeed, following 
Origen and the Fathers generally (with exceptions, however, as early as 
Irenaeus and Tertullian), have taken yAécca in this passage also as meaning 
foreign languages (so Storr, Flatt, Heydenreich, Schulthess, Schrader, 
Riickert, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Maier), and that, too, in the view of the ma- 
jority, wnacquired languages ;* only a few (among the most recent of whom 
are Schulthess, de charismatib. Sp. St., Lips. 1818, and Schrader, also Ch. 
F. Fritzsche in his Nov. Opuse. p. 302 ff.) regarding them as acquired by 
learning.? The former view is held also by Riickert (‘‘ the faculty, in iso- 
lated moments of high inspiration, of praising God in languages which 
they had not previously learned’) and Baeumlein in the Stud. d. evange- 
lischen Geistlichkeit Wiirtemb. VI. 2, 1834, pp. 80-123 ; Osiander ; Kling in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 487 ff. ; to some extent Olshausen and Bauer in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 658 ff. ; 1844, p. 708 ff. See, in opposition to it, 
especially Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 17 f. ; Bauer in the Tibding. 
Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 104 ff. ; Schulz, Geistesgaben, p. 57 ff. ; Zeller, Apos- 
telgesch. p. 89 ff.°; van Hengel, de Gave der talen, Leiden 1864, p. 90 ff. 


1So, too, Zinsler, de charism. tod yA. Aa- 
Aeitv, Aug. Vind. 1847,—a Roman Catholic 
prize-essay which obtained the prize, but is 
destitute of all scientific worth. Ofamuch 
more thorough description is another suc- 
cessful prize-essay (also Roman Catholic), 
by Englmann, von den charismen, etc., Mainz 
1848, who explains it in the same way of for- 
eign languages; as also Froschammer, 
Charismen, 1850; and Maier, Die Glossolalie 
des apost. Zeitalt. 1855. 

2 Ch. F. Fritzsche’s view is: At Corinth, 
as in seaport towns generally, there were 
labourers, fishers, etc., who, from their in- 
tercourse with foreign sailors, had become 
so far acquainted with different languages 
as to be able to converse about matters of 
ordinary life. Many of these people had 
become Christians, and having now learned 


thatit had been predicted by the prophets 
that in the Messianic times the Holy Spirit 
would bring about a speaking concerning 
divine things in strange tongues (Isa. xxviii. 
11f.; Joel iii.), they had accordingly applied 
this oracle to themselves, ‘‘quos pro sua, 
licet tenui, exterarum linguarum peritia 
prae ceteris idoneos putassent, quos 
Spiritus s. barbaris linguis de rebus divinis 
disserere juberet.”? Since, however, most 
of the Christians did not understand this 
speaking in strange tongues, there had to 
be an interpretation into Greek, and the 
interpreters in their turn not less than the 
speakers, regarded their ability as flowing 
from the Holy Spirit. So it all resolves it- 
self into naive self-deception and imagina- 
tion! 


284 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Even putting out of account the singular expression yAdcon Aareiv, which is 
supposed to refer to a foreign language, and the psychological impossibility * 
of speaking languages which had not been learned, the following consider- 
ations tell decidedly against the view of foreign languages: (1) It would 
make xiv. 2 untrue in all cases in which persons were found among the au- 
dience who understood the languages spoken. (2) In xiv. 10, 11 we have 
the yévy govdv (languages) expressly distinguished from the yévy yAwooar (see 
unfounded objections to this in Baeumlein, p. $2, and in Hofmann), and tl.c 
former adduced as an analogue of the latter. (8) What is contrasted with 
the glossolalia is not speaking in one’s native tongue, but speaking with 
employment of the understanding (xiv. 15) ; and the glossolalia itself is 
characterized as Aadeiv rvebuatt. (4) In xiv. 6 there is contrasted with the 
yAooo. Aadeiv the speaking év droxadbyper, év yvdoe: x.t.2., Which could all, of 
course, be done in any language ; hence the unintelligibleness of the glosso- 
lalia is not to be sought in the zdiom, but in the fact that what was spoken 
contained neither aroxdAviuc nor yrdoic, etc. (5) Upon this theory, the case 
supposed in xiv. 28 could not have occurred at all, since every speaker 
would have been able also to interpret. (6) In xiv. 18 Paul states that he 
himself possessed the glossolalia in a high degree, but adds that he did not 
exercise it in the church,—from which it would follow that Paul was in the 
habit of praying in private, before God, in foreign languages! (7) In xiv. 
9, dud tHE yAdoonce plainly means by the tongue, which,. however, would be a 
quite superfluous addition if the point were not one concerning speaking 
with tongues (not with languages). (8) Paul would have discussed the 
whole subject of the yép:oua in question from quite another point of view, 
namely, according to the presence or non-presence of those who understood 
foreign languages. Billroth therefore is right in opposing, as we do, the 
hypothesis of foreign languages ; but he still holds fast the signification 
language, and maintains that the glossolalia was ‘‘ the speaking of a mixed 
language, which comprised the elements or rudiments of actual historic languages 
of the most widely different kinds, and was the type of the universal, character 
of Christianity.” But to say nothing of the Quixotic arbitrariness of the 
conception of such a medley, to say nothing also of the fact that the first 
rudiments of languages must have been only very imperfect, unadapted for 
supersensuous themes, and wholly unsuitable as a means of expression for 
ecstatic inspiration—this view is opposed by almost all the considerations 
adduced against the hypothesis of foreign languages applied with the req- 
uisite modifications, and in addition by the phrase yAéooy Aadeiv without 
the article ; for the mixed language would surely not have been indefinitely 
a language, but the language kar’ é£oxhv, the primeval speech. Rossteuscher, 
too (Gabe d, Sprachen im apost. Zeitalter, 1850), explains it as languages, and 
infers from xiii. 1 that the glossolalia in 1 Cor. was the speaking in angelic 
languages (Acts ii. : in human languages), the designation being formed 
with reference to the characteristic of this mysterious language, that it be- 
1 This is made only the more evident,if take elements from very different languages 


we suppose (comp. ¢.g. Kling) that one and join them creatively together in a har- 
speaking with tongues could perhapseyen monious combination, 


CHAP. XII., 10. 285 
tokened a converse alone with God, such as the angels have. So also, in 
substance, Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 67 f. But this whole con- 
ception is shown to be erroneous when we consider that, if the specific 
characteristic of the phenomenon had been its angelic nature, the latter 
would have found its expression in the very name of the thing, and would 
also have been made mention of by Paul in his certainly pretty minute dis- 
cussion of the subject ; whereas, on the contrary, in xiii. 1 a speaking raic 
yiéooac Tov ayyédwv 18 Only supposed as an imaginary case to heighten the 
contrast. Generally, however, the explanations which make it a speaking in 
a language or languages, are incompatible with the whole account of it which 
follows, even if we try to represent to ourselves the phenomenon and the 
designation as Hofmann does. According to him, the question is regarding 
languages spoken by the speaker only in virtue of his being carried away 
by the Holy Spirit, the distinctions between which, however, were not to 
be considered as differences between the language of one nation and an- 
other, but arose out of this, that the Holy Spirit gave impulse and power 
to the speaker to make his language for himself for what he had to utter at that 
very moment, so that the language moulded itself specially in the mouth of 
each individual respectively for that which had to be uttered. Those ex- 
positors who departed from the signification language entered on the right 
path.’ But that by itself was not enough to bring them to what was pos- 
itively the right meaning. For Bleek in the Stwd. wu. Krit. 1829, pp. 3-79, 
1830, p. 43 ff., explains it as glosses, i.e. antique, highly poetic words and 
Jormulae to some extent consisting of provincialisms. This view is equally op- 
posed by most of the considerations which tell against the foreign lan- 
guages, as well as by xili. 1 ; and further, it has against it the fact that ya. 
in the above sense is a terminus technicus which occurs, indeed, after Aris- 
totle, although for the most part in grammarians, but which the New Tes- 
tament writers probably did not so much as know ; and also the considera- 
tion that the singular yAdéooy Aareiv, yAdooav éyevv, yAOcon mpocebyecbat, as 
well as the expression yiécca ayyéAwv, would be quite absurd. See further, 
Baur, loc. cit. p. 85 ff. (who, however, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff., 
has come over in substance to Bleek’s view) ; Schulz, loc. cit. p. 20 ff., and 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 752 ff. ; Wieseler in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1888, 
p. 723 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, @lossolalie, 1850, p. 28 ff. The result of all this is, 
that there is only the signification tongue remaining for yAécoa, so that yAdo- 
oaicg Aadeiv expresses an uttering oneself with tongues. This is not, however, 
to be taken as justifying the extreme view of Bardili (significatus primitiv. 
vocis tpogyt., etc., Gott. 1786) and Eichhorn (Biblioth. I. pp. 91 ff., 775 ff. ; 
II. p. 755 ff. ; IIL. p. 322 ff.), according to which what is meant is a lisping 
of inarticulate tones ;* for such a strange form of expression for inspiration, 


scarcely audibvle, 


1 Luther too, up to 1528, had ‘‘ tongues,”’ 
but from that date onwards has ‘‘lan- 
- guages.”? In chap. xiv., however, he has 
still ‘‘ tongues” in 1545, 

2 Wieseler approached nearest to this 
view, understanding ‘‘an ecstatic speaking 
in unintelligible expressions, i.e. in soft, 


inarticulate words, tones 
and sounds, in which inspired pious feeling 
Sound vent” (Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 738). 
The same writer, however, has more recent- 
ly (see Stud. u. rit. 1860, p. 113 ff.) modified 
his view to this extent, that he now explains 
the ecstatic soft praying as being only one 


286 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

for which Paul would hardly have given thanks to God,—such a play of 
spiritual utterance as would hardly have made any certain charismatic ex- 
position possible,—must have been clearly presented by the text, in order, 
despite these considerations, to warrant its assumption. Comp. on Acts ii. 
But the text characterizes the speaking in tongues as utterance of prayer 
(xiv. 18-17) in which the voti¢ falls into the background, and therefore un- 
intelligible without interpretation. There must thus, certainly, have been 
a want of connection, since the reflective faculty was absent which regulates 
and presents clearly the conceptions ; there may even have been inarticu- 
lateness in it, sometimes in a greater, sometimes in a less degree ; but must 
it on this account have been a mere babbling? May it not have been a 
speaking in ecstatic ejaculations, abrupt ascriptions of praise to God, and 
other mysterious outbursts in prayer of the highest strain of inspiration ? 
Baur, too, loc. cit., agrees in substance with this ;* as also Steudel in the 
Tiib. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 185 ff. ; Neander ; Kuntze in the theol. Mitarb. 
1840, p. 119 ff. ; Olshausen (who, however, takes yA. as languages, and 
holds himself obliged, on the ground of Acts i1., to include also the use of 
foreign languages) ; de Wette ; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362 f. ; Zeller in the 
theol. Jahrb. 1849, 1, p. 48, and Apostelgesch. p. 111. Comp. too, Ewald, 
Jahrb. IIL. p. 270 ff., who, however, derives from the speaking with tongues 
the a88a 6 rargp, which is in itself so intelligible, and which does not pre- 
suppose any high inspiration, and the unutterable sighings, Rom. viii. 26, 
which do not belong to the sphere of the Aaieiv. Similarly van Hengel, p. 
105, who, again, conceives the original glossolalia (‘‘ open-hearted and loud 
speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ,” see on Acts ii.) to have become 
so degenerate and abused by the Corinthians, that it was now ‘‘a spiritless 
counterfeit, a product of pride and vanity,” and so no longer to the glory of 
God in Christ,—an assumption which leaves it unexplained why Paul 
should not have denounced an abuse of this kind in the severest way, and 
how he could even place his own speaking with tongues upon the same 
level with that of the Corinthians. Hilgenfeld, who understands it to mean 
language of immediate divine suggestion (‘‘ divine tongues, spirit-voices 
from a higher world”), is not disposed to keep distinct from each other the 
two meanings of yAéoca, tongue and language (so also Zeller, Delitzsch, and 
others), although Paul himself keeps them distinct in xiv. 10f. Schulz 
limits the conception too narrowly to ascriptions of praise to God,? since, in 





special yévos yAwooav, no longer making it 
the universal form of all speaking with 
tongues, and in other respects agreeing in 
substance with our interpretation. But 
there is nothing in the whole section to 
lead to the idea of even a soft kind of glosso- 
lalia ; on the contrary, the comparisons, 
in particular, with the flute, lyre, trumpet, 
and cymbal, as well as with foreign lan- 
guages, are decidedly against this. <A soft 
lisping might run along with it, but was 
assuredly no special yévos yAwooar. 
1 Comp. also Weiss, 0ibl. Theol. p. 410. 


2The result of his investigation is pre- 
sented by Schulz, p. 160, as follows: ‘‘ The 
extraordinary excitement of mind, which 
at times possessed believers in Christ in the 
primitive church at the thought of the sai- 
vation now manifested in Christ, of the 
blessedness of God’s chosen children now 
realized after the fulfilment of his earlier 
promises, and which, under certain circum- 
stances, rose even to ecstasy, was itself re- 
garded asa special gracious gift of the God- 
head, and since no nearer means of expla- 
nation offered itself, as an immediate oper- 


CHAP. XIT., 10. 287 
fact, xiv. 18-17 shows that it included prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. 
We are accordingly to understand by yadooac Aadciv such an outburst of 
prayer in petition, praise, and thanksgiving, as was so ecstatic that in connection 
with it the speaker’s own conscious intellectual activity was suspended, while the 
tongue did not serve as the instrument for the utterance of self-active reflection, 
but, independently of it, was involuntarily. set in motion by the Holy Spirit, by 
whom the man in his deepest nature was seized and borne away.’ As regards 
this matter, it is conceivable—(1) that the abeyance of the vot¢ made this 
Aadeiv 80 disconnected and mysterious for hearers who were bound to the con- 
ditions of the voic, that it could not be understood by them without épunveia. 
Incomprehensible sounds, partly sighing, partly jubilant cries, broken 
words, expressions new in their form and connection, in which the deepest 
emotion struggled to express itself, and in whatever other ways the tongue 
might give utterance to the highest surgings and heavings of the Spirit,— 
it remained unfruitful for others, if no interpretation was added, like a for- 
eign language not understood. Equally conceivable is it (2) that in such 
utterances of prayer, the tongue, because speaking independently of the 
vove, apparently spoke of itself,” although it was in reality the organ of the 
Holy Spirit. It was not the J of the man that spoke, but the tongue,—so 
the case seemed to be, and so arose its designation. But (3) because that ec- 
static kind of prayer showed itself under very different characteristic modi- 
fications (which we doubtless, from want of experience of them, are not in 
a position to establish), and the same speaker with tongues must, according 
to the varying degrees, impulses, and tendencies of his ecstasy, have ex- 
pressed himself in manifold ways which could be easily distinguished from 
each other, so that he appeared to speak with different tongues, there arose 
both the plural expression yAdécoac Aadeiv and the mode of view which led 


ation of the Holy Spirit. Every one there- 
fore willingly yielded himself to such an ex- 
altation of spirit, and had no scruple in 
giving vent to_his joy of soul by joyous and 
jubilant tones, shouting aloud the praises 
of God in song, partly in old and familiar 
strains, partly in newly formed ones, with- 
out any concern for the fact that in this 
way he might easily fall into boundless ex- 
travagances, improprieties, and troubles. 
This singing of praise to God, arising in and 
Srom that condition of ecstasy,—these triumph- 
ant, loud-sounding strains of jubilation (not 
the condition of ecstasy itself), ave in our 
judgment what is denoted by the formulas 
yAdooyn and yAdaoats Aadctv.”” 

1 In the ancient church we have, as anal- 
ogies to the glossolalia, to some extent 
(Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 473 ff.) the Montanistic 
ecstasies (see Schwegler, Montanism, p. 88 
ff.; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, p. 115 ff.; comp. 
Liicke Hinl. in d. Apokal. J. p. 324, ed. 2); 
in modern times, the ecstatic discourses 
of the French and German inspired ones 
(Goebel in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1854, 


p. 287 ff.), as well as the Jrvingite speaking 
with tongues (Hohl, Bruchstticke aus ad. Leben 
Irv,, St. Gallen 1889, evangel. Kirchenzeit. 
1839, No. 54-f. ; 1839, No. 88 f.; Reich in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 195 ff.), and ecstatic 
incidents at Revivals and among the Ameri- 
can Methodists (Fabri, d@. newesten Hrweckun- 
gen in America, etc., 1860); as likewise glos- 
solalic phenomena, which are narrated of 
clairvoyants (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 364 f.). 
But earlier still we have another analogue in 
Philo’s conception of the divinely inspired 
speaking of the prophets ; the prophet only 
scems to speak himself, cataxyphrar dé ETepos 
avToD Tots dwvyTyplots Opyavors, OTOMATL Kat 
YAWTTY Tpos pHvvaL ov av GEAy (Quis Ter. div. 
haer.I. p. 510, Mang.).—Regarding the essen- 
tial difference of somnambulist phenomena, 
which may be compared with the speaking 
with tongues, see Delitzsch, Psychol. loc. cit. 
—There is not the remotest ground for 
thinking of an ecclesiastical secret language 
(Redslob, Apokal. I. 1859). 

2The tongue was not yA@coa vmjKoos TS 
Aoytoue, Plut. Mor. p. 90 B. 


288 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


men to distinguish yévy yAwcoiv.' — épunveia yAwoo.| Interpretation of tongues, 
le. @ making of tongues intelligible in speaking, a presentation of the sense of 
what they say.” The condition for this was the capacity of the voi¢, pro- 
duced by the Spirit, to receive what was prayed for in glossolalia. The 
man speaking with tongues might himself (xiv. 5-13) have the ydpioya of 
the interpreter (comp. the classical tro@Aryc), but did not always have it 
himself alone, as Wieseler also now admits (Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 117) in 
opposition to his own earlier view. (z’)’ 

Ver. 11. Amid all this diversity, however, what unity of the operative 
principle !— évepyei] namely, as the divine power endowing the different 
individuals differently. See what follows. Avddopor pév oi kpovvol, pia dé 
mravtwc mnyh, Theodoret. — idia] seorsim, severally. See Bernhardy, p. 185. 
Comp. Plato, Menex. p. 249 B: dzep iia éxdorw ida ytyvera. Pind. Nem. 
lii. 42 ; and very often in classical writers. Elsewhere in the N. T. : car 
idiav. —Kaba¢ Bobserac] not : arbitrarily, but (comp. on Matt. i. 19) : a ae- 
cordance with the determination of His will, which by no means precludes this 
divine self-determining action of the Holy Spirit from proceeding in a man- 
ner corresponding to the natural and general Christian capacity, and to the 
peculiar disposition and tendency of the minds, of men. Hence, on the 
one hand, the possibility that, from the human side, particular charismata 
may be obtained by effort, ver. 31, xiv. 1; and also, on the other hand, the 
duty of not estimating slightly the gifts of others. Observe, further, in 
Kaba BobAeras the personality of the Spirit. 

Ver. 12. Illustration of how one and the same Spirit works all the cha- 
rismata as He will; namely, just as the case stands with the body, that its 
many members make up its unity, soalso does it stand in like manner with 
Christ, whose many members likewise constitute the unity of His body. 


1 Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 628 ff., 
professes himself, so far as the plural ex- 
pression yAdaoats Aadecy is Concerned, an 
adherent of Bleek’s theory, which in other 
respects he impugns, with two limitations, 
however (see p. 636) : (1) that we are not to 
connect with yAeooa the conception of a 
poetic, inspired mode of speech; and (2) 
that Bleek’s explanation is not to be applied 
to the passages in the Acts. According to 
Baur, it is ‘‘a speaking in strange, unusual 
phrases which deviate from the prevailing usage 
of the language.”’ The pressure of the over- 
powering feeling, which strove for expres- 
sion, called to its aid these forms of speech, 
which were partly borrowed from foreign 
languages, partly at least not in use in the 
ordinary language of common life. These 
forms of speech were, according to him, the 
yA@ooa, and the yAdooats AaAety Was an in- 
tensified yAéoon AoA. Butif yAdooa, both 
in its singular and plural form, is to mean 
tongue (see p. 622), then yAéooa (the plural) 
cannot at the same time mean utterances of 
the tongue, peculiarities of language (see p. 


634 f.).—The different explanations of yévn 
yA. may be easily known from the different 
views of the nature of the xapiopya in itself. 
Those interpreters, ¢.g., who understand 
yAoooa of foreign languages, think of the 
variety of languages (Chrysostom on ver. 1: 
oO mév TH Tlepo@y, 66€ tov “Pwuaiwyv, o dé TH 
"Ivdav, 0 5 TH ETEpa TLve TOLAVTH EVIEWS Epdey- 
yeto yAwoon) ; Eichhorn: ‘‘ all sorts of unin- 
telligible tones ;” Schulz: ‘‘many various 
strains of divinely inspired songs of 
praise ;’? Wieseler (1888): the inarticulate 
lisping itself, ith and without its interpreta- 
tion; Rossteuscher: ‘‘human and angelic 
languages,” xiii. 1; Hilgenfeld: different 
kinds of divinely suggested speech; Hof- 
mann: all the different sorts of peculiar 
forms of the language in the mouth of each 
individual. 

2 How the ancient interpreters conceived 
of this xépuona, may be seen, é.g., in Theo- 
doret: avnp yap moAAdkis Thy “EAAdSa yA@trav 
povnv eidms, eTépov THY SKuvdIav Kat Opaxav 
duadeyomevov, THY Epunvetay mpooépepe Tots 
akovovet, 


CHAP: XII, 13. 259 


‘0 Xproréc is not the Christian church, but Christ Himself, inasmuch, that is 
to say, as He, as the Head of the church, has in its many members His or- 
ganic body,’ which receives forth from Him, the Head, the whole harmo- 
nious connection and efficiency of all its members and its growth. Christ 
is not conceived as the Hyo of the church as His body (Hofmann), but as in 
all parallel expressions of the apostle (see especially Eph. iv. 16, 25, v. 30 ; 
Rom. xii. 4 f., and above on vi. 15), as the Head of the church, and the 
church as the body of the Head. Ver. 21 does not run counter to this ; see 
on that passage. — The repetition of tot céuaroc, which is superfluous in 
itself, or might have been represented by airov (comp. Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 
222, ed. 2; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i.7. 11), serves here emphatically to 
bring out the unity. 

Ver. 13. Confirmation of this unity from the holy inward relation which 
conditions it. For even by means of one Spirit were we all baptized into one 
body—i.e. for even by this, that we received one and the same Holy Spirit 
at our baptism, were we all to be bound together into one ethical body. 
Comp. Titus iii. 5. —In «ai, which belongs to é évi mv., is conveyed the 
indication of the relation corresponding to what was spoken of in ver. 12 ; 
éBarrio#., again, is not to be taken tropically, as is done by Reiche also (‘‘ de 
Spiritu sancto largiter nobis collato”), following Venema, Michaelis, Rosen- 
miiller, Krause, Flatt, and admitting only an allusion to baptism ; but, as 
the word itself must have suggested to the reader, of the actual baptism, 
only in such a way that by év évi rvevyate it was to be brought prominently 
before the mind from its spiritual side, according to its materia coelestis, in 
so far as it was a baptism of the Spirit. Comp. Hofmann also, now in op- 
position to his own Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 28. This Barricjvac év évi rvetpare 
has taken place ei¢ év cdua, in reference to one body (Matt. xxviii. 19 ; Rom. 
vi. 3; 1 Cor. x. 2), i.e. it had as its destination that we should all now 
make up one body. Regarding ¢ize "Iovdaior x.7.A., comp. Gal. iii. 28 ; Col. 
ili. 11. — The second hemistich does not begin already with eire Iovdaior k.7.2., 
in which case kai before ravrec would be only in the way (comp. also iii. 
22 ; Col. i. 16), but starts only from kai rdvrec, so that the reception of the 
one Spirit at baptism is once again declared with emphasis. The reference 
to baptism was correctly made by as early commentators as Chrysostom,? 
Oecumenius, Theophylact ; in recent times, by Riickert, Baur, de Wette, 
Ewald, Maier, Hofmann: and we were all given to drink of one Spirit (comp. 
Ecclus. xv. 3). To represent the communication of the Spirit which took 
place at baptism as a giving to drink, followed naturally from the concep- 
tion of the powring out of the Spirit,* John vii. 37 ff. ; Acts ii. 17 ; Rom. 
v. 5 ; and is here, after being already mentioned with év évi tvebuarv, brought 
forward yet again independently and with peculiar emphasis as the inward cor- 
relate of the éy cdua. This kai 7. & rv. éror. refers neither (Augustine, 


1Comp. Ehrenfeuchter, prakt. Theol. I. éripoitnaw thy and Tod Bamticwatos Kai mpd 


 p. 57 f.; see also Constitt. ap. ii. 59. 1. TOV LVOTHPlwY eyyLvVoMEVNVY HLY. 
2 He gives first the explanation referring 3 Comp. also Isa. xix. 10: memdtixev vpas 
it to the Lord’s Supper, but then goes on: — k¥ptos mvedpari Katavitews, 


. ‘ ‘ “ -~ , ’ 4 J 
emor 5€ Soxet viv exeivyy A€yery mvevpaTos THY 


290 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO TITE CORINTHIANS. 


Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, Osiander, Neander,. Kahnis, 
Kling, and many others) to the Lord’s Supper (most adopting the reading ei¢ 
iv rv., Which would mean : in order to make up one Spirit), nor ‘‘ to the fur- 
ther nourishment and training in Christianity through the Divine Spirit, who 
constantly renews Himself in every Christian” (Billroth, Olshausen), in con- 
nection with which the reference to the Lord’s Supper is not excluded. The 
norist is against both these interpretations, for its temporal significance must 
be the same with that of éGarr., and against the former of them is the read- 
ing é mveiua’ (without eic¢), by which the reference to the Lord’s Supper 
(see, in opposition to this, Theophylact) is debarred in this way, because 
the idea that we drink the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is not biblical, 
not even underlying x. 3 f. See, besides, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Riick- 
ert refers correctly kai . . . éxor. to the reception of the Spirit as an event 
happening once for all, but takes the relation of the two clauses in such 4 
way, that what Paul means to say is, ‘‘we are not simply one body, but 
also one spirit.” In that case he would not have written év évi rvebyare in 
the first clause. 

Ver. 14 ff. For the further illustration (ydép) of this unity, the figure of 
the human body is again brought forward in order now to carry it out more 
minutely, and to show by it in detail on to ver. 26 how preposterous it is 
to be discontented with the gift received, or to despise those differently 
gifted. On the whole passage, comp. the speech of Menenius Agrippa in. 
Livy, ii. 82, also Seneca, de ira, ii. 81 ; Marc. Anton. ii. 1, vil. 18 ; Clem. 
Oor. I. 87. —érz obk eiud yetp] because I am not hand, I am not of the body, do 
not belong to it. — ov rapa toiro x.t.4.] cannot, with Erasmus,’ be taken as 
a question (which Billroth, Rickert, Hofmann, following Bengel and others, 
rightly rejects), so that the double negative should strengthen the denial : 
num ideo non est corporis? In this case, namely, oi would only be the or- 
dinary interrogative, which presupposes an affirmative answer ; but as such 
it can by no means warrant or explain an intensifying repetition. And an 
anadiplosis of the ov (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 696 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. 
p. 199 A) would be suitable in an earnest declaratory sentence, but not in 
such a question as this. We must therefore delete the mark of interroga- 
tion, as Lachmann also and Tischendorf have done,* so as to make ov serve 
as a negative for the whole sentence, while the succeeding otv« applies sim- 
ply to the gor». We render consequently, so is he not on that account (name- 
ly, because he asserts it in that discontented expression) no part of the body ; 
that peevish declaration does not do away with what he is, namely, a member 
of the body. — Regarding apd with the accusative in the sense of : for 
the sake of, in virtue of, on account of, see Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. 883 ; 
Kriiger on Thue. 1. 141. 6 ; so often in Demosthenes. By rovro* cannot be 
meant : this, that it is not the hand (Billroth and others), but only (comp. 


1 [This reading is adopted by all the re- Neander. 


cent editors.—T. W. C.] : 3 [Also Westcott and Hort, Stanley, Kling, 
2 Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin,and most and Beet so translate.—T. W. C.] 
expositors, including Griesbach, Scholz, 4 Comp. mapa tovro, 4 Mace. x. 19; mapa 


Flatt, Schulz, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, tavta ravra, Judith viii. 25. 


CHAP. XII., 17-23. 291 


Hofmann), as the logical relation of the protasis and apodosis requires : 
this, that it gives vent to such discontent about its position of not being the hand, 
as if it could not regard itself in its capacity of foot as belonging at all to 
the body. Erasmus in his Paraphrase happily describes the temper of the 
member which spoke in this way as : deplorans sortem suam.” —It may be 
added, that as early an interpreter as Chrysostom has appreciated the fact 
of Paul’s placing together foot and hand, eye and ear, as analogous mem- 
bers : éewd?) yap ov toicg odddpa brepéyovow, AAA Tog ddiyov avaBEeByKdot POoveiv 
elolauev. 

Ver. 17 exposes the preposterous character of the preceding language. — 
dd0aAud¢] sc. qv, ver. 19. — dc¢dpyorg| Plato, Phaed. p. 111 B, the sense of 
smell. 

Ver. 18. Nvvi dé] but so, i.e. but in this way, as the case really stands, has 
God given to the members their place (éero), etc. — év éxaotov avtov] is in 
apposition to ra wéAy, and defines it more precisely. — 70éAncev] To this sim- 
ple will of God each member has to submit itself. The thought in xadc¢ 
Bobaera, ver. 11, is different. 

Ver. 19 f. Jf, on the contrary, the whole of the members, which make up 
the body, were one member,—if they, instead of their variety, formed one 
undifferentiated member,—where were the body ?! In that case there would 
be no body existent, for its essential nature is just the combination of dif- 
ferent organs,—a new abductio ad absurdum.— But so (as ver. 18) there are 
indeed many members, but one body. The antitheses in vv. 18 and 20 mani- 
fest, in contradistinction to the perverseness of vain longing after gifts not 
received, the necessity of the existing relation to the organic and harmoni- 
ous subsistence and life of the church. 

Ver. 21. Hitherto, in vv. 15-20, this figure has been used to rebuke those 
who were discontented with what they considered their lesser gifts ; we 
now come to those who were proud of their higher gifts and contemptuous 
towards the less highly gifted. — ot dévara:| of the impossibility conditioned 
by the indispensableness of the hand for the eye. — radu] as in Matt. iv. 7, 
v. 33, again,—since the case belongs to the same category. Comp. on 2 Cor. 
x. 7; Rom. xv. 10. — 7 xedadg] the head, consequently the part of the body 
which stands highest, compared with the feet, the members that stand lowest. 
That Paul, in his specializing representation, has in view simply the corporeal 
members as such, and therefore introduces the head also upon the scene with 
the rest, without in any way thereby touching upon the idea of Christ as 
the Head of the church (comp. on ver. 12), is plain from the whole picture, 
which, in its concrete details, is as far as possible from giving occasion to 
allegorical interpretations of the several parts of the body. 

Vv. 22, 23. No ; the relationship of the members is, on the contrary, of a. 
different sort ; those accounted weaker are necessary ; likewise those held to be 
less honourable are the more honourably attired ; those which are unseemly are 
invested with all the greater scemliness. What particular members Paul 
specially meant here by the weak (Theodoret, Estius, and several others 


1 (That is, what would become of the organization of the body as a whole ?—T. W. C.] 


292 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


hold: the brain and inward organs; Hofmann: ‘‘the delicate inward 
parts ;” Bengel : the hands; most commentators, including Billroth : the 
eyes and ears) and by the ariuorépore (usually: the feet ; Grotius and Calo- 
vius: ‘‘venter cum iis quae sub ventre sunt ;” Kypke: the intestines) 
cannot be definitely settled in detail, since he only says ina summary way : 
‘‘ How contrary it isto the natural relation of the members, if one were to say 
to the other (as in the preceding illustration the eye to the hand, or the head 
to the feet), I have no need of thee ! Such contemptuous treatment can — 
find no warrant either in the weakness, or the less honourable character, or 
the unseemliness of any member ; for the members which we count weak are 
shielded from depreciation by their necessity ; those held less honourable, by 
their more honourable dress ; and those which are unseemly, by their seemly 
covering.” Since, however, it is of itself undoubted that he reckoned the 
pudenda (ra aidoia) and the breech among the acyfuova, we may further, with- 
out arbitrariness, set down the delicate organs of sense, such as the eye and 
ear, among the dofevécrepa, and among the ariudérepa again the members spe- 
cially cared for in the way of adornment by dress, such as the trunk, hips, 
and shoulders. (A?) — 70AA@ paAdov] the logical multo potius. — ra doxovvra] 
which appear, like & doxotyev, ver. 23. Chrysostom aptly says, that what is 
conveyed is not ri¢ dtoews TOv Tpaypatar, but tHo TOV TOAAdY brovoiac 7 Whdoc. 
The position is, as in Plato, Rep. p. 572 B, cat wavy doxovow judy éviowe uetpiorg 
eivat. Comp. p. 384 C. — The first cai in ver. 23 subjoins another category, 
the two members of which are put in order of climax (ariuér., aoyhu.). — 
ariérepa elvat tov od. | tobe more dishonourable parts of the body, than others ; 
‘‘comparativus molliens,” Bengel. — rijv repico.| honour in richer measure 
than others, namely, by the clothing, which is indicated by repirié. (Matt. 
Xxvil. 28 + Gen. xxvii. 16 ; Esth. i. 20 ; Prov. xii, 9172 Maccm xm toni, 
39, xxili. 832; Hom. J/. iii, 330, xiv. 187).— Ta doyju. qu.) our unseemly 
parts. Theodore of Mopsuestia says well : aoyfyova o¢ mpodc tiv Kowny byw 
aroxaizet. Notice, too, that we have not here again the milder relative com- 
parative. — éye] They have greater seemliness than others ; it becomes 
their own, namely, through the more seemly covering in which they are at- 
tired. On the purport of the verse, Chrysostom remarks rightly : ri yap trav 
popiov TOv yevyntikOv ariudtepov év juiv elvat Soke; GAW buwe mAelovog aroAater 
TiUHe, Kat ot odddpa mévytec, Kav TO AoiTOV yuuvov Exwor CGua, OVK av avdoyowTo 
éxeiva Ta wéAn deig=ac yuuvd. According to Hofmann, we are to supply rod 
cGuatoc from what goes before in connection with ra aoyqu. ; the words from 
nuav to éyer, again, are to be taken as : they bring with them a greater seemli- 
ness (a more seemly demeanour) on our part. Needlessly artificial, and con- 
trary to the ra ré etoyfu. yudv which follows. 

Ver. 24. Ta d& etoyhu. ju. ov yp. éy.] which should be separated from what 
precedes it only by a comma, is not designed to set aside an objection (Chrys- 
ostom, Theophylact), but it appertains to the completeness of the subject 
that, after the adoyfuova have been spoken of, the remark in question should 
be added regarding the eicyfuova also, in order to let nothing be wanting 
in the exhibition of the adjustment which takes place in connection with 
the variety of relation subsisting between the members. Evoynuootvyy repisc. 


CHAP, XII:, 25-27. 293 


éyew naturally supplies itself from the foregoing context to od ypetav Eyer. 
All the less ground is there for connecting juév with od yp. éy. (Hofmann, 
comp. Osiander), which would give the thought: they stand inno need of us, 
which is too general, and which would still need to be limited again by what 
precedes it -— a4’ 6 Ocdc¢ x.7.4.] cannot be antithesis to the foregoing neg- 
ative (Hofmann), which would bring the special subordinate thought od ypeiav 
éyec into a connection quite disproportionately grand and far transcending it. 
There should, on the contrary, be a full stop placed before aA1’, so as to 
mark the beginning of a new sentence ; and add’ rather breaks off (at, see 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15) the delineation of the mutual relations of the 
members, which has been hitherto given, in order now to raise the readers 
to the higher point of view from which this relationship is to be regarded, 
that of the divine appointment and destination. — ovvexépace| He has mingled 
together, i.e. united into one whole out of differently constituted parts. — rw 
potepovvte| to that which stands after, remaining back behind others, i. 7, viii. 
8; Plato, Pol. vii. p. 589 E, Hpin. p. 987 D (see also on Matt. xix. 20), ze. 
to the part which, according to human estimation, is meaner than others.’ 
— epic. dove tiu.| dobe is contemporaneous with ovvexépace: so that He gave, 
namely, when He granted to them, according to vv. 22, 23, respectively 
their greater necessity and the destination of being clad in a more honourable 
and more seemly way. 

Ver. 25. Syicua] i.e. disunion, such as is vividly represented by way of ex- 
ample in ver. 21. — aAAda 76 airé x.t.4.| in order that, on the contrary, there 
may be one and the same interest, to which the members mutually direct 
their care for each other. Comp. Liv. loc. cit. What Paul has in view in 
the +6 airé, which he so emphatically puts first, may be gathered from the 
wrép aAAfAwv, namely, the welfare of every other member. Comp. ver. 26. 
The plural wepiuvdcc with the neuter noun is to be explained from the dis- 
tributive sense (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12) ; in ver. 26, on the other 
hand, the totality of the members is expressed. 

Ver. 26. And how perfectly is this design of God realized in the mutual 
sympathy of the members! This happy result of the divine appointment 
stands most suitably here at the close of the whole discussion before the ap- 
plication ensues in ver. 27, although Hofmann denies the connection of 
thought. — dogdfera] is glorified, which may take place practically by flour- 
ishing growth, by adornment, dress, anointing, and the like, and further by 
recognition of'its usefulness, beauty, strength, dexterity, and so forth. —In 
view of the sympathy of the whole organism, and in consideration of the 
personifying style of the description, the concrete literal sense of the verse 
ought by no means to be modified. 

Ver. 27. Application of all that is said of the human body (vv. 14-26) to 


1 Tn how far, is stated in vv. 22, 23. Bya Jor the self-propagation of man. Neither 
very arbitrary importation of ideas, Hof- that specific reference in itself, nor this 
mann holds that 7d vorepodvy means the more precise definition of the greater 
loins and genitals, a part of the body which, honour referred to,—out of place as it is in 
while falling behind the rest in honour, is this connection,—could ever have been 
distinguished by the honour of serving guessed by a reader from ver. 22 f. 


R94 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


his readers : now ye are (in order now to apply to you what has been hither- 
to said, you then are) the body of Christ and members proportionately. In 
each Christian church the (ideal) body of Christ presents itself, as in each 
is presented the (ideal) temple of God ; but each church is not a separate 
body of Christ ; hence, just as with the idea of the temple (see on iii. 16), 
we must keep entirely away from us the conception of a plurality, as if the 
churches were oduata Xpiotov, and understand céua Xpiorov not as a body,’ 
but as body of Christ, the expression without the article being qualitative. 
— Now if the church, asa whole, is Christ’s bedy, then the individuals in 
it are Christ’s members (comp. vi. 15), but this not without distinction, as if 
every one could be any member ; but é« yépoue, according to parts, according 
as each one respectively has his own definite part in the body of Christ, con- 
sequently his especial place and function which have fallen to him pro parte 
in the collective organism of the church. ’Ex betokens the accompanying 
circumstance of the fact, Bernhardy, p. 230 ; the expression, however, does 
not stand here as in xiii. 9, 10, 12, in contrast to that which is perfect (Hof- 
mann), but, as the context shows, in contrastto the united whole, the xozvdy 
comp. éxaorov népovc, Eph. iv. 16. Luther puts it well, as regards the essen- 
tial meaning: ‘‘ each one according to his part.” Comp. Calvin. Other 
interpreters understand, with Grotius (who explains it like oi Kara pépove) 3 st 
ex partibus jit aestimatio, considered as individuals. So Billroth, Riickert, 
Ewald, Maier. But what would be the object of this superfluous definition ? 
That uwéAy refers to individuals, is surely self-evident. Chrysostom held 
that the Corinthian church was thereby designated as part of the church 
universal, So also Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and others. 
But a glance at other churches was entirely alien from the apostle’s purpose 
here. 

Ver. 28. More precise elucidation of the é« uépove, and that in respect of 
those differently gifted and with extension of the view so as to take in the 
whole church ; hence Paul adds éy rH éxxAnoia, and thereby averts (against 
Hofmann’s objection) the misunderstanding of «ai (which is to be taken as 
and indeed), as if there had been Corinthian apostles. — Regarding é6¢ro, 
comp. Acts xx. 28. —obi¢ wév] certain ones. In beginning thus, Paul had it 
in mind to make od¢ dé follow after ; but in the act of writing there occurred 
to him the thought of the enumeration according to rank (comp. Eph. iv. 11), 
and so oi¢ wév was left without any continuation corresponding to it. After- 
wards, too, from érevra onwards, he again abandons this mode of enumera- 
tion. Comp. Winer, p. 528 [E. T. 711]; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 313 
[E. T. 865]. According to Hofmann, pu ravrec x.7.A., ver. 29, is meant to 
form the apodosis of x. ob¢ wév x.7.2., 80 that the subject of ravre¢ is con- 
tained in otc: ‘‘ Those, too, whom God has placed in the church first as 
apostles... are they all apostles, all prophets ?” etc. But obd¢ uév can be 
nothing else than the quite common distributive expression, and not equiv- 





1 Baur, too, founds upon the absence of would be odjecti. But in every place where 
the article, and takes it to mean, ‘‘a body _ the body of Christ is spoken of the genitive 
which has the objective ground of its ex- is subjectt; Paul would in that case have 
istence in Christ,’ so that the genitive written c®ua év Xprorw (comp. Rom. xii. 4). 


PTA Pa IL os 295 
alent to obto: év, oc, as Hofmann would have it (appealing inappropriately 
to Isocr., Paneg. 15); and the proposition itself, that those appointed by 
God to this or that specific function have not also collectively (?) all other 
functions, would be in fact so self-evident, and the opposite conception so 
monstrous, that the apostle’s discourse would resolve itself into an absurdity. 
—éy tH éxxA.| The Christian church generally, not simply the Corinthian, is 
meant; as is proved by dzoor.; comp. Eph. i. 22 ; Phil. iii. 6, al. — arooré- 
iov¢g|.in the wider sense, not merely of the Twelve, but also of those messen- 
gers of the Messianic kingdom appointed immediately by Christ at a later 
time for all nations, such as Paul himself and probably Barnabas as well, 
likewise James the Lord’s brother. Comp. on xv. 7. The apostles had 

_the whole fulness of the Spirit, and could therefore work as prophets, teachers, 
healers of the sick, etc., but not conversely could the prophets, teachers, 
etc., be also apostles, because they had only the special gifts for the offices 
in question. — rpogqr.] See on ver. 10. — didacxadove] These had the gift of 
the Holy Spirit for preaching the gospel in the way of intellectual develop- 
ment of its teaching. Comp. on ver. 10 and Acts xiii. 1 ; Eph. iv. 11.’— 
duvauerc| sc. éHeto, 1.e. He instituted a category of spiritual gifts, which 
consists of miraculous powers. Paul does not designate the persons endowed 
with such powers (Hofmann, who appeals for support to Acts viii. 10, and 
compares the names of the orders of angels), but, as the following par- 
ticulars show, his discourse passes here into the abstract form ; by no means, 
however, because there were no concrete representatives of the things 
referred to (Billroth, Riickert), but probably because variations of this 
kind, even without any special occasion for them, are very natural to his 
vivid style of representation. Comp. Rom. xii. 6-8, where, in the reverse 
way, he passes from abstracts to concretes. — avtiAgwerc| services of help (B") 
(2 Macc, viii. 19; 8 Macc. v. 50; Ecclus. xi. 12, li. 7; Ezr. viii. 27, al.; not 
so in Greek writers), is most naturally taken, with Chrysostom and most 
interpreters, of the duties of the diaconate, the care of the poor and sick. — 
KuBepvgoeic| governments (Pind. Pyth. x. 112 ; Plut. Mor. p. 162 A ; comp. 
also Xen. Oyr. i. 1. 5 ; Polyb. vi. 4. 2 ; Hist. Susann. 5), is rightly under- 
stood by most commentators, according to the meaning of the word, of the 
work of the presbyters (bishops) ; it refers to their functions of rule and 
administration, in virtue of which they were the gubernatores ecclesiae. The 
(climactic) juxtaposition, too, of avriAfp. and xvBepv. points to this interpre- 
tation. — Regarding yévy yAwoodv, see on ver. 10. — The classification of all 


1 As Eph. iv. 11 speaks only of the exer- 
cises of teaching activity, the remaining 
charismata which are named here found 
no place there. The evangelists specially 
mentioned, in addition, in that passage 
were assistants of the apostles, and there- 
fore did not require to be specially adduced 
here, where the point of view extended 
further than to the departments of teaching 
merely. The motméves cai ddaocxadror, Eph. 


l.c., are as rouéves included under the — 


' kvBepvjcers. —Observe, further, that the 


divine appointment of the persons referred 
to took place in the case of the apostles, 
indeed, by an immediate call along with 
the endowment, but in the case of the rest 
by the endowment, the emergence of which, 
in the standing services of the church, regu- 
lated the choice of the churches under the 
influence and indication of the Holy Spirit 
(comp. on Acts xx. 28). Comp. also H6fling, 
Kirchenverfassung, p. 272 f., ed. 2, and see 
on Eph. iv. 11. 


296 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the points adduced is as follows: (1) To the gift of teaching, the most im- 
portant of all, belong amdor., rpog., duddox.; (2) to the gift of miracles : 
Svvau., yaplou., iauat.; (3) to the gift of practical administration rac tév éxKAn- 
otav oixovouiac, Theodoret : avriAqp. and kvBepv. ; (4) to the ecstatic yapioua : 
the yévy yAwoodv (see on ver. 10). This peculiar character of the last named 
gift naturally enough brought with it the position at the end of the list, 
without there being any design on Paul’s part thereby to oppose the 
overvaluing of the glossolalia (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, and many others). It is only the aréor., the rpodAr., and the 
diddox. which are expressly adduced in order of rank; the érecta and eira 
which follow only mark a further succession, and thereafter the enumera- 
tion runs off asyndetically, which, as frequently also in classical writers (see 
Kriiger, Xen. Anab, ii. 4. 28), takes for granted that completeness is not 
aimed at. The two enumerations, here and in vv. 8-10, supplement each 
other ; and Rom. xii. 6 ff. also, although the most incomplete, has points 
peculiar to itself.’ ! 

Vv. 29, 30. None of these functions and gifts is common property of all 
(all gifted persons). This Paul expresses in the animated queries : But all 
surely are not apostles ? and so on ; whereby, after the same thing had been 
done positively in ver. 28, the é« uépove of ver. 27 is now clearly elucidated 
afresh in a negative way—in order to make the readers duly sensible of the 
non omnia possumus omnes, and of the preposterousness of envy against other 
gifted persons. — duvauecc] Accusative depending on éyovow, not nominative, 
as if it denoted wonder-working persons (Bengel, Riickert, de Wette, Osian- 
der, Hofmann, and others) ; see on ver. 28. — Paul here passes over the 
avriAgy. and KvBepv., Since it was of no importance to make a complete repe- 
tition.—With reference to the whole thought, comp. Homer, JJ. xiii. 780 f. 

Ver. 31. It is not the wish of Paul, by what he has said from ver. 4 up 
till now regarding the different gifts of the Spirit, to repress the eager 
striving after them. But the important question is as to the nature of the 
gifts and the manner of the striving. Hence: But be zealous after the better 
gifts of the Spirit,? those which are more essential than others, and have a 
more absolute value for the highest welfare of the church (ver. 7). The dé 
is the autem marking the transition to a new point. — Z7Aovre, again, does 
not conflict with ver. 11, because the will of the communicating Spirit is 
not an arbitrary one, but makes the receptive capacity and the mental ten- 
dency of the individual to be the grounds of its own self-determination. The 
zealous striving after the better gifts consists therefore negatively in this, 
that one makes such yapicwara, as are less generally necessary and have less 
value for the church (as e.g. the glossolalia, the reception of which was sought 
after by many for the sake of show), less the aim towards which he directs 
his will and cultivates a susceptibility ; positively, again, it consists in this, 
that one makes those better gifts, on the other hand, the object of his ar- 
dent desire and the aim of his self-active development, in order to reach in 


1 [No one of these seems to be intended attain something, comp. Dem. 500. 2 (aperyv), 
to be exhaustive.—T. W. C.] 504. 8 (Swpeas), 1461. 9 (ra ayada); Polyb. vi. 
2 Regarding ¢nAovv tm, to seek eagerly to 25. 11 (rd BeAriov) ; Wisd. i. 12 (Gavaror), 


CHAP. XII., 31. ROG 
this way the definite degree of receptivity needful to be the organ of the 
agency of the zvevua in question, and thereby to become, by the free will of 
the Spirit, partaker of the better gifts.’ It is perfectly plain that in this ¢yAobv 
supplicatory prayer is also included ; but it is arbitrary to limit the concep- 
tion to it, as does Grotius : ‘‘agite cum Deo precibus, ut accipiatis” (comp. 
Heydenreich, Riickert, Hofmann). Equally arbitrary, too, is every de- 
parture from the hitherto invariable sense of ydpioua ; as e.g. Morus and 
Ewald hold faith, hope, and love to be meant ; and Billroth, the fruits aris- 
ing from love ; Flatt, again (comp. Osiander), even imports the right use of 
the gifts which should be striven after. Comp. on the contrary, as to the 
difference in value of the charismata, xiv. 2 ff. — kai éri «.7.2.] and further- 
more, yet besides (Luke xiv. 26 ; Héb. xi. 86; Acts ii. 26; often thus in 
Greek authors), besides prescribing to you this ¢(yAotre, I show you (now, 
from chap. xiii. 1 onwards) @ surpassing way,’ an exceedingly excellent 
fashion, according to which this fyA0vv of yours must be constituted. By 
this he means that the striving after the better gifts must always have love 
as its determining and impelling principle, without which, indeed, the gifts 
of the Spirit generally would be worthless (xiii. 1 ff.), and the «peirrova un- 
attainable. Love is thus the most excellent way, which that ¢y20iv ought 
to keep. (c?) Riickert (so also Estius) finds here the meaning: ‘‘I show 
you a far better way still, in which ye may walk, namely, the way of love, 
which far surpasses all possession of charismata ;”’ and so, too, in substance, 
_ Hofmann : ‘‘even away beyond the goal of the better charismata I show 
you a way,” @.e. a way which brings you still further than the yor r. yap. 
t. ko. But Paul surely did not conceive of the striving after the better 
charismata as becoming unnecessary through love, but rather as necessarily 
to be connected with love (xiv. 1, 39). Besides, he would logically have 
required to attach his statement not by xai, but by éya dé or aaad ; but even 
d priori it is improbable that he should have merely set down the weighty 
Cndovre O& T. yapiou. T. KpeitT. In such a naked way, and should have forthwith 
forsaken it again with the remark that he would now give instructions away 
beyond the better gifts. Grotius and Billroth connect xa’ izepZ. with the verb. 
The former renders: by way of superfluity (so also Ewald) ; the latter : 
‘after a fashion which, as being the best, is certain of its success.” But the 
meaning, by way of superfluity (é« mepovoiac, éx Tov Tepiooov), Corresponds 
neither to the N. T. use of the phrase (Rom. vil. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17; 
Gal. i. 138 ; comp. 4 Mace. iii. 18), nor to its use elsewhere in Greek (Soph. 
Oed> Tyr. 1196; Polyb. ii. 92. 10, ix. 22. 8; Lucian, p. mere. cond. 
13 ; Dem. 1411. 14). Moreover, Paul could hardly have considered the 
following instructions, especially in view of the circumstances of the Corin- 


1 Theophylact aptly says (comp. Chrysos- possunt sequi et exercere. Deus operatur 


tom): nvigato npéwa, OTe avToi aitLok cio Tov 
7a éhattova AaBetv: dia yap Tov eimety* CyAovTE, 
THY Tap éxelywv orovdyy amatTet Kal THY TAELW 
emOupiav mepi Ta mvevmaTika, Kai ov« eime: Ta 
pevGova, GAAG Ta KpelTTOVa, TOVTéGTL TA whErt- 
potepa. Comp. Bengel: ‘Spiritus dat ut 
vult, sed fideles tamen libere aliud prae alio 


suaviter, non cogit.’? So also de Wette. 

2 Paul has not put the article to oddr, 
** suspensos nonnihil tenens Corinthios,” as 
Bengel says, who also observes with fine 
discernment upon the present detkvume, 
‘jam ardet Paulus et fertur in amorem,” 


298 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


thians, as given ‘‘further by way of superfluity.” It militates against Bill- 
roth, again, that the apostle’s thought could not be to recommend the 
manner of his instruction regarding the way, but only the way itself, as ex- 
cellent. On the other hand, to take the xa irepB. dddv together is gram- 
matically correct, since it is a genuine Greek usage to attach adverbs of de- 
gree to substantives, and that generally by prefixing them. _Bernhardy, p. 
338 ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 83 f. [E. T. 96]; comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 28 ; 
also on 1 Cor. viii. 7, vil. 85 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phoed. p.93 B. We find 
this connection given in the Vulgate, by Chrysostom and Theophylact (xaé’ 
trepB. tovtéotiy brepéyouoav), Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, and most 
interpreters. Bengel suggestively describes the superlative conception, 
which is attached to édév by xa? brépBoany, ‘quasi dicat ; viam maxime 
vialem.” 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITor. 


(x!) Calling Jesus Lord. Ver. 3. 


Of course any man can utter the words, but what the Apostle means is, that 
no man ¢an make this confession, truly believing all that it implies, unless he be 
enlightened by the Holy Ghost. And this is precisely what our Lord said to 
Peter when he made his noble confession, ‘‘'Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
the living God.’’ ‘‘ Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath 
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matt. xvi. 16, 17). 


(x') The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge. Ver. 8. 


A simpler view of the subject states the difference thus: The word of 
wisdom is the gift of revealing the truth of the gospel, which belonged only to 
the Apostles ; but the word of knowledge is the gift of understanding and ex- 
plaining correctly the truth thus received, which belonged to the other teachers. 


(z1) The gift of tongues. Ver. 10. 

The two chief theories on the meaning of this gift are—one, that it was the 
power of speaking foreign languages without having learned them ; the other, 
that it was an ecstatic utterance in a tongue different from all known languages 
of earth, and requiring to be interpreted to be of service to any hearer. The 
former view was firmly held by the late Dr. Edward Robinson, who insisted 
that the glossolaly recorded in the second chapter of Acts, being the foundation 
passage in the whole matter, should control all the other references to the sub- 
ject. This view of the case may be found sustained by a masterly array of 
arguments in Dr. Hodge’s notes on the text in his First Corinthians. With him 
agree Principal Brown and others. The latter view seems to be held by Stan- 
ley, Kling, Speaker’s Commentary, Ellicott’s Commentary, Beet, and most of 
the more recent writers. The reader will find a very clear and comprehensive 
statement of the whole question in the new edition of Schaff’s. ‘ sg of the 
Christian Church’’ vol. i. 234-243. 


(a?) ‘* The less honourable parts.’’ Ver. 23. 


Stanley justly remarks upon the terms ‘‘ weaker,” ‘‘less honourable,” ‘un- 
comely,’’ that they are best left undefined, as the Apostle has left them ; the 


NOTES. A909 


words being accumulated and varied designedly, so as to include all parts of 
the human frame without particularly specifying any. 


(B*) Services of help. Ver. 28. 


This word (antilepseis), as used in the LXX., is not (like diakonia) help minis- 
tered by an inferior to a superior, but by a superior to an inferior (see Ps. 
Ixxxix, 18 ; Eccles, xi. 12, li. 7); and thus, while inapplicable to the ministra- 
tions of the deacon to the presbyter, would well express the various helps ren- 
dered by those who had the gift of interpretation, to the congregation at large, 
or to those who were vainly struggling to express themselves intelligibly in 
their strange accents. 


(oc?) ‘* The more excellent way.’’ Ver. 31. 


Hodge insists that the original term here is not in itself comparative, and 
can get that meaning only from the context. But here no comparison is im- 
plied. The idea is not that Paul intends to show them a way that is better 
than seeking gifts, but a way par ewcellence to obtain those gifts. The sense of 
the verse is therefore, ‘‘seek the better gifts, and moreover I show you an excel- 
lent way to do it.’ So Kling and Alford. Shore, in Ellicott’s Commentary, 
says, ‘‘the more excellent way is not some gift to be desired to the exclusion 
of the other gifts, but a more excellent way of striving for those gifts. You 
are not to strive for any one gift because it is more highly esteemed or because 
it is more apparently useful, or because it is more easily attained. That which 
will consecrate every struggle for attainment and every gift when attained, is 
Love.”’ 


3C0 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ver. 3. Wouicw] Elz. has pouito, which is condemned by almost all the uncials. 
— xavojowua] A BS, 17, Codd. in Jerome, Copt. Aeth. Ephr. Hier. have xav- 
Xyjowua.' But iva cavynowua (given up again even by Lachm.) is a manifest 
addition, which was written on the margin to call attention to the loveless mo- 
tive, and supplanted the similar and difficult iva kav@jowuae (C K, min. vss. 
Chrys. Theodoret, and Latin writers). — Instead of the subjunctive, Tisch. has 
the future indicative xav@jooua (D EK F GI, min. Mac. Max.), which of course 
could be easily changed by ignorant copyists into the subjunctive, anomalous 
though it was. — Ver. 8. éximrer] Lachm. reads zimre:, following A B C* &*, 
min. and several Fathers. Rightly ; the simple form was defined more precise- 
ly by way of gloss. Comp. Rom. ix. 6.— yvdo.c, carapynOyoetar] A D** F G &, 
17, 47, Boern. Ambrosiast. have yvice:c, katapynGncovtar. So Rickert (Lachm. 
on the margin). The plural crept in after the preceding. — Ver. 10. 76] Elz. 
Scholz read rére 76, against decisive testimony. 


ConTENTS.—The want of love makes even the greatest charismatic 
endowments to be worthless (vv. 1-3) ; excellencies of love (vv. 4-7) ; 
eternity of love in contrast to the transient nature of the charismata (vv. 
8-13).—This praise of love—almost a psalm of love it might be called—is as 
rich in its contents drawn from deep experience as in rhetorical truth, ful- 
ness and power, grace and simplicity. ‘‘ Sunt figurae oratoriae, quae hoc 
caput illuminant, omnes sua sponte natae in animo heroico, flagrante amore 
Christi et huic amori divino omnia postponente,” Valckenaer, p. 299. In 
no other passage (comp. especially, Rom. xiii. 8-10) has Paul spoken so 
minutely and in such a manner regarding love. It is interesting to compare 
the eulogy of *Epwc—so different in conception and substance—in Plato, 
Symp. p. 197 CDE. A Christian eulogy on love, but one far inferior, 
indeed, to the apostle’s, may be seen in Clement, Cor. I. 49. (D”) 

Ver. 1. ’Edv] is not equivalent to ei xai with the optative (Rickert), but it 
supposes something, the actual existence of which is left dependent on cir- 
cumstances : asswming it to be the case, that I speak, etc. — rai¢ yAdcoaic tev 
avip. x. tT. ayy.| To say that yAdéooa must mean languages here (Riickert, 
Olshausen, Baur, Rossteuscher), is an arbitrary assertion.” Why may it not 


1 [This reading, adopted by Westcott and —those of the angels.”? So likewise Flatt. 


Hort, is expressed in the margin of the 
Revised New Testament. It is a case in 
which the best mss. differ from almost all 
the other documents.—T. W. C.] 

2 Rickert: ‘‘If I spoke all languages, not 
only those of men, but also—which would 
certainly be a higher gift, higher than your 
yAwooats AaAety Which you esteem so highly 


Baur renders strangely: ‘If I spoke not 
simply in isolated expressions taken from 
different languages, but in those different 
languages themselves ; and not simply in the 
languages of men, but also in the languages 
of the angels.’ This climactic ascent from 
glosses to the languages themselves is surely a 
pure importation. Rossteuscher, if his 


CHAP AIS TIT ey d01 
be held to mean tongues? The expression is analogous to the well-known 
Homeric one—only much stronger : ¢ wou déxa wév yAdoou, déxa dé orduar’ elev, 
il, ii. 489. Comp. Virgil, Aen. vi. 625 ; Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 16 : ode ci 
pvpia oréuata éyou Kal pvpiacg yAdooac. The meaning is: Supposing that I am 
a speaker with tongues, from whom all possible kinds of articulate tongues might 
be heard, not simply those of men, but also—far more wonderful and exalted 
still—those of theangels. Paul thus describes the very loftiest of all conceiv- 
able cases of glossolalia. The tongues of angels here spoken of are certainly 
only an abstract conception, but one in keeping with the poetic character of 
the passage, as must be admitted also with respect to the old interpretation 
of angelic languages. Beza says well, that Paul is speaking ‘‘ irepBodixdc ex 
hypothesi, ut plane inepti sint, qui h. 1. disputant de angelorum linguis.” 
Comp. Chrysostom : ody? oGua mepitiblele dyyédouc, GAN 6 Aéyer ToLoUT6Y éoTL’ Kav 
ovTH gbéyyouat O¢ ayyédowg véuog mpd¢ GAAhAove diaréyecba. Others, such as 
Calovius, Bengel, and several more, have thought of the languages used by 
the angels in their revelations to men ; but these surely took place in the form 
of human language. The appyra phuara of 2 Cor. xi. have also been brought 
in, where, however, there is nothing said of angels. —Why the apostle begins 
with the yAdéoc. 2a., is correctly divined by Theodoret (comp. Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact) : mpérov drdvtwv réOerxe trav wapefétacw rototuevoc 
TO ydpioua Tov yAwoodv, émeldy TOvVTO Tap’ avToic EdNbKEL pEilov 
élvat tov GAAwYv. It had become the subject of over-estimation and 
vanity to the undervaluing of love. — aydrnv] i.e. love of one’s neighbor, which 
seeks not its own good, but the good of others in a self-forgetting way. 
Ver. 4 ff.—A sounding metal and a clanging cymbal, i.e. like these, a mere dead 
instrument of a foreign impulse, without any moral worth, yéyova have I 
become (and am so : perfect), namely, in and with the actual realization of 
the supposed case. See Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. To 
interpret yaAxdc as a brazen musical instrument (Flatt, Olshausen, with many 
older commentators), which would otherwise be admissible in itself (comp. 
generally, Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 83), is wrong here, for the simple reason, 
that one such is expressly named inaddition. The text does not warrant 
our departing from the general metal ; on the contrary, it proceeds from 
the indefinite to the definite (cymbal), from the crude to the product of art. 
Comp. Plato, Prot. p. 829 A: éomep Ta yadkeia rAnyévta pakpoy jyei, Crat. p. 
430 A. —xtuBadrov] brazen basins were so called, which were beaten upon, 2 
Sam. vi. 5; 1 Chron. xiii. 8, al.; Judith xvi. 2; 1 Macc. iv. 54; Joseph. 
Antt. vii. 12. 4 ; Xenophon, de re eg. i. 8; Pind. Fr. 48 ; Lucian, Bacch. 4, 
Alex. 9 ; Herodian. v. 6. 19. — dAadrdgov] screaming, an epithet no doubt 


theory of an “‘ angel’s Zanguage,”’ which was 
the Corinthian glossolalia, were correct, 
‘ would require, in conformity with the plu- 
ral expression, and with his view of the 
human languages (the latter being the lan- 
guages of the nations spoken in Acts ii.), to 
make the passage refer to many different 
languages of the angels, which they sought 
to speak at Corinth. If yA®ooa: meant lan- 


guages at all, Hofmann would be in the 
right in holding that no kind of speaking 
should be excluded here from the wonderful 
utterances in question, since the angels also 
doubtless speak among themselves or to 
God, so that Paul would go beyond what 
actually took place by including also the 
modes of utterance of the angels. 


302 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


purposely chosen, which is manifestly at variance with the theory of the soft 
and scarcely audible (Wiescler, 1838), nay, noiseless (Jaeger) nature of the 
glossolalia. The xbuBadra were dfi¢0oyya (Anthol. vi. 51). Comp. arataypde of 
cymbals (Ps. cl. 5) and other loud-sounding instruments, Eur. Cycl. 65, Hel. 
1368. 

Ver. 2. That Paul adduces only two charismata (rpodyteia and ‘riore) in 
the protasis, and consequently uses cal eid6 . . . yvoow to mark out the 
degree of rpogyreia, is shown plainly by himself in his repeating the «a? éav. 
In the case of these gifts also he is supposing the highest conceivable degree. 
-—Ta prothpia whvta] the whole of the mysteries, i.e. what remains hidden from 
human knowledge without revelation, as, in particular, the divine decrees 
touching redemption and the future relations of the Messianic kingdom, iv. 
1; Matt. xiii. 11; Rom. xvi. 25, al. — yvéow] profound knowledge of these 
mysteries, as xii. 8. The verb connected with it is eid, but in such a way 
that the latter is to be taken here zeugmatically in the sense : I am at home 
in (Homer, Od. ii. 121; Z7. xviii. 3638, xv. 412). Observe further, that 
before it was pvoripia, but here zacav, which has the emphasis ; translate : 
‘< the mysteries one and all, and all knowledge.” To these two departments 
correspond the Adyoc codiacg and the Adyoe yrdoewe in xii. 8. —rdoav tr. riorw 
x.7.4.] the whole heroism of faith (not specially the faith of miracles, see on 
xii. 9), so that I displace mountains. — The latter phrase in a proverbial sense 
(to realize the seemingly impossible), as Jesus Himself (Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 
21) had already portrayed the omnipotence of faith. But without love, 
even in such an instance of the might of faith there would still not be the 
Sides salvifica, Matt. vii. 22. —otdév eiue] in an ethical respect, without any 
significance and value. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; Arist. Heel. 144 ; Soph. Oed. 
Rex, 56 ; Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 10, al.; Wisd. iii. 17, ix. 6 ;. Bornemann, ad Xen. 
Oyr. vi. 2. 8; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 216 E; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 
430.—Notice further, that Paul only swpposes the cases in vv. 1 and 2 ina 
general way ; but they must be conceived of as possible ; and their possibil- 
ity arises from the fact that, in the midst of the charismatic phenomena 
which made their appearance as if by contagion in the church, men might 
be carried away and rapt into states of exaltation without the presence of 
the true ground of the new inward life, the new creature, the true kawéry¢ 
Coe and rvebuatoc (Rom. vi. 4, vii. 6). 

Ver. 3. ‘‘ And supposing that I do outwardly the very highest works of 
love, but without really having love as my inward motive, then I have no 
advantage therefrom, namely, towards attaining the Messianic salvation” 
(1 John iii. 14). Comp. Matt. xvi. 26; Gal. v. 2. —pouilew td te Means 
properly : to feed any one with something in the way of putting it by mor- 
sels into his mouth ; then generally, cibare aliquem aliqua re, Rom. xii. 20. 
See the LXX. in Schleusner, V. p. 569; Valckenaer, p. 803. Only the , 
thing is mentioned here in connection with the verb, but who the persons (the 
poor) are, is self-evident, as also the meaning : cibando consumsero. Comp. 
Poll. vi. 83. —xai éav rapad6 x.7.2.] a yet higher eternal work of love, surren-- 
der of the body (Dan. ili. 28), self-sacrifice. — iva xavffoopar| (see the critical 
remarks) in order to be burned. The reading xavOfowpza would be a future 


CHAP. XIII., 4, 5. 303 


subjunctive, a barbarism, the introduction of which in pre-New Testament 


Greek is due only to copyists. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 720 f.; Buttmann, 
neut. Gramm, p. 31 [E. T. 35]. The sense should not be defined more pre- 
cisely than : in order to die the death by jire. To refer it, with most inter- 
preters since Chrysostom, to the fiery death of the Christian martyrs, is with- 
out support from the known history of that period, and without a hint of it in 
the text. Probably such martyr-scenes as Dan. ili. 19 ff., 2 Macc. vii., hov- 
ered before the apostle’s mind. Comp. Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 20. 

Ver. 4. Love is personified ; the living concrete portrait of her character, 
in which power to edify (viii. 1) reflects itself, is presented as if in sharply 
drawn outline, with nothing but short, definite, isolated traits, positively, 
negatively, and then positively again, according to her inexhaustible 
nature. — paxpoOvuei| she is long-suffering ; in face of provocations control- 
ling her anger, repressing it, giving it up, and maintaining her own proper 
character. The general frame of mind for this is ypyoretera : she is gracious 
(comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.), Clem. Cor. i. 14. The verb is found, 
besides, only in the Fathers. — Observe here and in what follows the asyndetic 
enumeration, and in this ‘‘incitatior orationis cursus ardorem et affectum” 
(Dissen, ad Pind. Eve. II. p. 275). But to write, with Hofmann, following 
Lachmann, 7 adyary paxpoOupeit. Xpnorebetat 7 ayarn, 1s less suitable, for this 
reason, that, according to the traditional division, the long list of negative 
predicates which follows is very appropriately headed again by the subject. 
— ow ¢ndoi|] negation of all passionate, selfish feelings towards others (envy, 
jealousy, and such like). — ob reprepeteras| she boasts not, practises no vaunt- 
ing. See Cicero, ad Att. i. 14; Antonin. v. 5, and Gatak. in loc. ; also 
Winer, Beitr. zur Verbess. d. neutest. Lexicogr. p. 5 ff. Comp. wéprepoc in 
Polyb. xxxii. 6. 5, xl. 6. 2; Arrian. Hpict. iii. 2. 14. 

Ver. 5. Ov aoynuovei| she acts not in an unseemly way. See on vii. 36. 
To hold that Paul was thereby alluding to unsuitable attire in the assem- 
blies (Flatt), involves an inappropriate petty limitation, as does also the 
reference to unseemly conduct on the part of those speaking with tongues 
(de Wette). He means generally everything that offends against moral 
seemliness. — rd éavt#c] comp. x. 33. — ob rapokivera:] does not become embit- 
tered, does not get into a rage, as selfishness does when offended. This is 
the continuance of the paxkpofuyia. — ob Aoyilerar 76 xaxdv| she does not bring 
the evil, which is done to her, into reckoning (2 Cor. v. 19 ; Rom. iv. 6, al.; 
Ecclus. xxix. 6 ; Dem. 658. 20, 572. 1, al.) Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8. Theodoret 
puts it happily : cvyyiwéoker roig éxtacopévortc, ok éxl Kak cKxord Tavra yeyeviobat 
AauBavev. Others render: she thinks not evil (Ewald ; Vulgate: ‘non 
cogitat malum”). This thought, as being too general in itself, has been more 
precisely defined, cither as : ‘‘ she seeks not after mischief” (Luther, Flatt, and 
several others ; comp. Jer. xxvi.3; Nah. i. 9), which, however, serves so 
little to describe the character of love, that it may, on the contrary, be said 
to be a thing self-evident ; oras: ‘‘ she suspects nothing evil” (Chrysostom, 
Melanchthon, Grotius, Heydenreich, and others; comp. also Neander), 
which special conception, again, would be much too vaguely expressed by 
Aoyiverat. 


504 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 6. Ext rH adixia] over immorality (Rom. i. 18, li. 8), when she sees 
this in others. In view of the contrast, Chrysostom and others, including 
Hofmann, take this in too narrow a sense : obK é¢7deTat Toig KaKOo Tac yovow, 
understanding it thus of delight in mischief; comp. Luther: ‘sie lachet 
nicht in die Faust, wenn dem Frommen Gewalt und Unrecht geschieht” 
(She does not laugh in her sleeve when the pious suffer violence and wrong). 
Theodoret puts it rightly, pecei ra rapdvoua. It is just the generality of this 
thought which specially fits it to form the copestone of all those negative 
declarations ; for in it with its significant contrast they are all summed up. 
— ovyyxaipet dé Th GAnO.| The adfGeca is personified, and denotes the truth xar’ 
éfoypv, the divine truth contained in the gospel, Col. i.5; Eph. 1.18; Gal. 
v. 7; 2 Thess, ii. 12, 138; John i. 17, al. Love rejoices with the truth, has 
with it one common joy, and this is the most complete contrast to the 
yaipew éxi rH aduxia ; for to make morality prevail, is the ethical aim of the 
aArgdera (2 Thess. ii. 12 ; Rom. ii. 8), whose joy it is, therefore, when she is 
obeyed in disposition, speech, and action (1 Pet. i. 22, iraxon ti¢ adnbeiac) ; 
and her companion in this joy is love. Usually aAgbeva has been understood 
of moral truth, ¢.e. morality, as in v. 8; either, with Theodoret, Flatt, and 
most interpreters : she rejoices over what is good,—a rendering, however, from 
which we are debarred by the compound ovyy.; or, with Chrysostom : cvvA- 
detae Toi¢g eddoxiuovor, Billroth : ‘‘she rejoices with those who hold to the 
right,” Riickert : ‘‘she rejoices with the man, who is saved to morality,” 
Osiander : ‘‘she rejoices with the heart, which is filled with the truth and 
with obedience towards it.” Thereby there is made an arbitrary change in 
the conception, according to which, in conformity with the antithesis, the 
dixacootyy (the opposite of the ddcxia) is not the subject, in fellowship with 
which love rejoices, but the object of this common joy ; the subject with 
which love rejoices is that truth. According to Hofmann, the meaning of 
the passage is, that love has her joy withal, when the truth comes to its rights 
in that which befalls any one. But so also there is no sufficient justice done 
to the compound ovyy., and the more precise definition, ‘‘in that which 
befalls any one,” is imported. 

Ver. 7. Ilévra] popular hyperbole. Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ Fert, quae ferri 
ullo modo possunt.” — oréye] as in ix. 12: all things she bears, holds out 
under them (szffert, Vulgate), without ceasing to love,—all burdens, priva- 
tion, trouble, hardship, toil occasioned to her by others. Other interpreters 
(Hammond, Estius, Mosheim, Bengel, al. ; Rickert hesitatingly) under- 
stand : she covers all up, i.e. excuses all wrong. Equally correct from a 
linguistic point of view, according to classical usage ; but why depart from 
ix. 12?—7dvta ror.] Opposite of a distrustful spirit ; bona. sides towards 
one’s neighbour in all points. — ravra éArifec] opposite of that temperament, 
which expects no more good at all from one’s neighbour jor the future ; 
good confidence as to the future attainment of her ends. — ravta tropéver] 
all things she stands out against—all sufferings, persecutions, provocations, 
etc., inflicted on her. This is the established conception of izouov# in the 
N. T. (Matt. x. 22, al. ; Rom. xii. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, al.), according to which 
the endurance is conceived of as a holding of one’s ground, the opposite of 


CHAP. XIII., 8-10. 305 


gebyeww (Plato, Tim. p. 49 E, Theaet. p. 177 B). Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10. — 
Note further how the expressions rise as they follow each other in this verse, 
which is beautiful in its simplicity : if love encounter from others what may 
seem too hard to be endured, all things she bears; if she meet what may 
cause distrust, all things she trusts ; if she meet what may destroy hope in 
one’s neighbour, all things she hopes ; if she encounter what may lead to giv- 
ing way, against all she holds out. 

Ver. 8. Up to this point the characteristics of love have been given ; now 
on to ver. 13 her imperishableness is described, in contrast to the purely tem- 
porary destination of the gifts of the Spirit. — oidérore rimrer] (see the criti- 
cal remarks) never does she fall, i.e. she never falls into decay, remains always 
stedfast (uéver, ver. 13). The opposite is: xatapyyfjoovra, rabvcovrat. 
Comp. Luke xvi. 17 ; Plato, Phil. p. 22 E; Soph. Ant. 474 ; Polyb. x. 33. 
4, i, 85. 5; Dem. 210. 15. The Recepta éxrixtes (Rom. ix. 6) is to be taken 
in precisely the same way. Theodoret puts it well : ob diacddAdera, ddA ded 
péver BeBaia k. axivytoc, é¢ aet dtauévovoa’ TovTo yap dia Tov éxayouévav édidager. 
— In what follows cite opens out in detail the general conception of yapic- 
pata. Be it again (different kinds of) prophesyings, they shall be done away ; 
be it (speaking) tongues, they shall cease, etc. This mode of division and 
interpunctuation is demanded by dé (against Luther and others, including 
Heydenreich). Prophecy, speaking with tongues, and deep knowledge, 
are only appointed for the good of the church for the time wntil the 
Parousia ; afterwards these temporary phenomena fall away. Even the 
gnosis will do so ; for then comes in the perfect knowledge (ver. 12), and 
that as the common heritage of all, whereby the deep knowledge of gifted 
individuals, which is still but imperfect, as it occurs before the Parousia, 
will necessarily cease to subsist. 

Vv. 9, 10. Proof of the last and of the first of the three preceding points. 
The second stood in need of no proof at all. Hor in part (é« pépove ; its 
opposite is éx rov mavréc, Lucian, Dem. enc. 21) we know, imperfect is our 
deep knowledge, and in part we speak prophetically, what we prophetically 
declare is imperfect. Both contain only fragments of the great whole 
which remains hidden from us as such before the Parousia. — érav dé én 
K.T.A.| but when that which is perfect shall have appeared (at the Parousia ; 
otherwise, Eph. iv. 13), then will that which is in part (the gnosis and the 
prophecy therefore also, seeing they belong to the category of the partial) 
be done away. The appearance of the perfected condition of things nec- 
essarily brings with it the abolition of what is only partial. With the 
advent of the absolute the imperfect finite ceases to exist, as the dawn 
ceases after the rising of the sun. We are not to supply, with Hofmann, 
ywwdoker and rpodytevery (as substantival infinitives) to 76 réAevov and to ro éx 
pépovc, by which unprecedented harshness of construction the sense would 
be extorted, that only the imperfect ywéoxew and rpodyrgtberv will cease to 
make room for the perfect. But what Paul means and says is that these 
charismata generally, as being designed only for the aeon of the partial, 
and not in correspondence with the future aeon of the perfect, will cease to 
exist at the Parousia ; their design, which is merely temporary, is then 


306 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


fulfilled. With the advent of the Parousia the other charismata too (xii. 8 
ff.) surely cease altogether ; not simply that the imperfection of the way in 
which they are exercised ceases. 

Ver. 11. Illustration of what was said in ver. 10 by an analogy taken from 
each man’s own personal experience in life, inasmuch, namely, as our 
present condition, when compared with our condition in the aidv pé2Aor, is | 
like that of the child in comparison with that of the man. The man has 
given up the practices of the child. (z*) —égpévovv refers to the interest and 
efforts (device and endeavour), éAoy. to the judgment (reflective intellectual 
activity). To make é/a4., however, point back to the glossolalia, é¢p. to the 
prophesying, and é2o0y. to the gnosis (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, 
Valckenaer, Heydenreich, Olshausen, D. Schulz, Ewald ; Osiander unde- 
cided), is all the less warranted an assumption, seeing that ép. and é2oy. 
are no specific correlates of the prophecy and gnosis respectively. 

Ver. 12. Justification of this analogy in so far as it served to illustrate the 
thought of ver. 10. — dprz] ¢.e. before the Parousia. — dv écérrpov] through a 
mirror ; popular mode of expression according to the optical appearance, 
inasmuch, namely, as what is seen in the mirror appears to stand behind it. 
The meaning is : our knowledge of divine things is, in our present condition, no 
immediate knowledge, but one coming through an imperfect medium. We 
must think not only of our glass mirrors, but of the imperfectly reflecting 
metal mirrors’ of the ancients (Hermann, Privatalterth. § 20. 26). Td écortpov 
replotnot TO épouevov dr waod4m0Te, Chrysostom: This is enough of itself 
to enable us to dispense with the far-fetched expedient (Bos, Schoettgen, 
Wolf, Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, Heydenreich, Riickert, 
and others) that écorrpov means speculare, a window made of tale (lapis spec- 
ularis, see Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 22). In support of this, such Rabbini- 
cal passages are adduced as Jevamm. iv. 18, ‘‘Omnes prophetae viderunt 
per specular (pad ND) obscurum, et Moses, doctor noster, vidit per spec- 
ular lucidum.” See Buxtorf, Lev. Talm. p. 171 ; Wetstein in loc. But 
against this whole explanation is the decisive fact that the assumed meaning’ 
for éoorrpov is quite undemonstrable, and that no expositor has succeeded 
in establishing it. It always means mirror, as do also évorrpov and xKatoxtpov 
(Pindar, Nem. vii. 20; Anacreon, xi. 2; Plutarch, Praec. conjug. 11 ; Luc. 
Amor. 44, 48 ; Wisd. vii. 26; Ecclus. xii. 11 ; Jas. i. 23); a tale window 
is duértpa (Strabo, xii. 2, p. 540). — év aiviyware] which should not be sepa- 
rated from dv’ écéxtpov by a comma, is usually taken adverbially (Bernhardy, 
p. 211), like aiviyuarixéc, so that the object of vision shows itself to the eye 
in an enigmatic way. Comp. also Hofmann, who holds that what is meant 
is an expression of anything conveyed in writing or symbol, of such a kind 
that it offers itself to our apprehension and eludes it in quite equal measure, 
But aiviyua is a dark saying ; and the idea of the saying should as little be 
lost here asin Num. xii. 8. This, too, in opposition to de Wette (comp. 
Osiander), who takes it as the dark reflection in the mirror, which one sees, 
so that év stands for eic in the sense of the sphere of sight. Rtickert takes 


1 Hence the designation yaAxds Stavyyjs fora mirror. See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 378. 


CHAP. XTI1,,° 12. 307 
év for el¢ on an exceedingly artificial ground, because the seeing here is a 
reading, and one cannot read ei¢ tov Adyov, but only év ré Adyw. Luther ren- 
ders rightly : tn a dark word ; which, however, should be explained more 
precisely as by means of an enigmatic word, whereby is meant the word of the 
gospel-revelation, which capacitates for the Biérew in question, however 
imperfect it be, and is its medium to us. It is aimyya, inasmuchas it affords 
to us, (although certainty, yet) no full clearness of light upon God’s decrees, 
ways of salvation, etc., but keeps its contents sometimes in a greater, some- 
times in aless degree (Rom. xi. 33 f.; 1 Cor. ii. 9 ff.) concealed, bound up in 
images, similitudes, types, and the like forms of human limitation and human 
speech, and consequently is for us of a mysterious and enigmatic nature,‘ stand- 
ing in need of the future icc, and vouchsafing zioric, indeed, but not eldoc 
(2Cor. v. 7); comp. Num. xii. 8. To take év in the instrumental sense is 
simpler, and more in keeping with the conception of the BAémew (videre ope 
aenigmatis) than my former explanation of it as having a local force, as in 
Matt. vi. 4 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 3 (in aenigmate versantes). — rére dé] btav d& éAOn- 
70 TéAevov, ver. 10. — rpdécwrov rpic tpdcwrorv| according to the Hebrew 0°39 
9-8 (Gen. xxxii. 30 ; comp. Num. xii. 8), face to (coram) face, denotes 
the immediate vision. Grammatically zpécurev is to be taken as nominative, 
in apposition,* namely, to the subject of B2érouev, so that mpic tpdowrov applies 
to the object seen. And itis God who is conceived of as being this object, as 
is evident from the parallel xa@a¢ Kai éreyvaobnv. — apte ywookw x.T.A. | conse- 
quence of the foregoing spoken asyndetically, and again in the first person 
with individualizing force, in the victorious certainty of the consummation at 
hand. — érvyvécoua Kabdc¢ xat éxeyvood.| cannot mean : then shall I know as 
also I am known, i.e. as God knows me (so most interpreters), but (observe the 
aorist) : as also I was known, which points back to the era of conversion to 
Christ (for the apostle himself, how great aremembrance !), when the Chris- 
tian became the object of the divine knowledge (see on viii. 3) turning to 
deal with him effectually. The meaning therefore is: ‘‘but then will my 
knowledge of God be so wholly different from a merely partial one, as it is now, 
that, on the contrary, it will correspond to the divine knowledge, so far as it once 
at my conversion made me its object, namely (opposite of é uépove) by complete 
knowledge of the divine nature, counsel, will, etc., which present themselves 

‘to me now only in part.” Notice further that the stronger term érvyrdcopat 
is selected in correspondence with the relation to the preceding simple yivécxw 
(Bengel, pernoscam ; see Valckenaer, ad Luc. p. 14 f.), and that «ai is the or- 
dinary also of equivalence. It may be added, that this likeness of the future 
knowledge to the divine is, of course, relative ; the knowledge is ‘‘in suo 
genere completa, quanta quidem in creaturam rationalem cadere potest,” 
Calovius. 


1 The objection, that Paul would hardly 
have called the revelation aiviywa (see de 
Wette) is sufficiently set aside by the con- 
sideration that he calls it so relatively, in 
relation to the unveiling still to come. Me- 
lanchthon puts it happily . ‘‘ Verbum enim 


est velut involucrum illius arcanae et mi-. 
randae rei, quam in vita coelesti coram as- 
piciemus.”’ 

2 As appositio partitiva. 
§ 431.3. Fritzsche, ad Maitth. iii. 12. 
ger, § 57. 10. 


See Matthiae, 
Krié 


308 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Ver. 13. Nev? dé] nune autem, and thus, since, according to ver, 8 to 12, 
the present temporary charismata do not continue, but cease in the future 
age, continue (into the everlasting life and onward in it) faith, hope, love.' 
This explanation.of vvvi dé in a conclusive sense, as xii. 18, 20, and of péve 
as meaning eternal continuance,” has been rightly given by Irenaeus, Haer. 
ii. p. 47, iv. 25 ; Tertullian, de pat. 12; Photius in Oecumenius, p. 553 ; 
Grotius, Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. pp. 98, 
210), Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. For, although the majority of interpreters 
since Chrysostom (including Flatt, Heydenreich, Riickert, David Schulz, 
Neander) have explained vvvi dé in a temporal sense : ‘‘ but for the present, 
so long as that glorious state lies still far off from us” (Riickert), and pévec 
of continuance in the present age (in the church), this is incorrect for the 
simple reason, that Paul, according to ver. 8 ff., expected the charismata to 
cease only at the Parousia, and consequently could not have described 
merely the triad of faith, hope, and love as what was now remaining ; the 
yveo also, prophecy, etc., remain till the Parousia. Hence, too, it was an 
erroneous expedient to take péver in the sense of the swm total, which re- 
mains as the result of a reckoning (Calvin, Bengel, and others). — zioric¢] 
here in the established sense of the jides salvijica. This remains, even in the 
world to come, the abiding causa apprehendens of blessedness ; what keeps 
the glorified in continued possession of salvation is their abiding trust in the 
atonement which took place through the death of Christ. Not as if their 
everlasting glory might be lost by them, but it is their assured possession 
just through the fact, that to them as ovyxAnpovouoi of Christ in the very be- 
holding and sharing His glory the faith, through which they become blessed, 
must remain incapable of being lost. The everlasting fellowship with Christ 
in the future aiéy is not conceivable at all without the everlasting continu- 
ance of the living ground and bond of this fellowship, which is none other 
than faith. — éAric] equally in its established N. T. sense, hope of the ever- 
lasting glory ; Rom. v. 1, and frequently. This abides for the glorified, 
with regard to the everlasting duration and continued development of their glory. 
How Paul conceived this continued development and that of the Messianic 
kingdom itself to proceed in detail, cannot indeed be proved. But the idea 
is not on that account unbiblical, but is necessarily presupposed by the con- 
tinuance of hope, which is undoubtedly asserted in our text. Moreover, in 
xv. 24, steps in the development of the future Bacitea are manifestly given, 
as indeed the everlasting dda generally, according to its essential character 
as Coy, is not conceivable at all without development to ever higher perfec- 


1 The three so-called theological virtues. 
But faith and hope might also be called 
virtues, “‘quia sunt obedientia, quam pos- 
tulat Deus praestari suo mandato,’’ Me- 
lanchthon. 

21If, again, it be assumed that the con- 
ception of mévec differs in reference to its 
different subjects, this is nothing but arbi- 
trary importation. Osiander (comp. Theo- 
phylact before him) holds that the pévew 


has different degrees; in the case of faith 
and hope, it lasts on to the Parousia ; in the 
case of love, it is absolute, onward beyond 
the Parousia. And as distinguished from 
the charismata, it denotes in the case of 
faith and hope the constant continuance as 
opposed to the sporadic. What accumulated 
arbitrariness ! Lipsius is correct in sub- 
stance, but does not define specifically: 
enough the conception of the miarts. 


CHAP. IIT, 13¢ 309 
tion for the individual, and therefore also is not conceivable without the 
continuance of hope. The conception of this continued development is not 
excluded by the notion of the réAecov, ver. 10, but belongs thereto.’ Bill- 
roth is wrong in saying ‘‘ faith and hope remain, in so far as their contents 
is eternal.” That is to confound the objective and subjective. De Wette 
(comp. Maier) holds that ‘‘ faith and hope, which go directly to their object, 
remain by passing over into sight.””. Butin that way precisely they would not 
remain (Rom. viii. 24 ; Heb. xi. 1), and only /ove would remain. For all the 
three the uéverv must be meant in the same sense. Our interpretation, again, 
does not run counter either to 2 Cor. v. 7 (where surely the future seeing of 
the salvation does not exclude the continuance of the jides salvifica), or to 
Rom. viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1, since in our text also the hope meant is hope of 
something future not yet come to manifestation, while the jides salvifica has 
to all eternity a suprasensuous (Heb. Joc. cit.) object (the atoning power of 
the sacrifice of Jesus). Hofmann transforms it in his exposition to this, that 
it is asserted of the Christian who has believed, hoped, and loved that he 
brings thither with him what he 7s as such, so that he has an abiding heri- 
tage in these three things. But that is not what Paul says, but simply that 
even in the future aeon, into which the charismata will not continue, 
Christians will not cease to believe, to hope, to love. — ra rpia raita] brings 
the whole attention, ‘before anything further is said, earnestly to bear upon 
this triad. — peifwrv dé tottwy| is not to be taken as peifwr dé 7 TadTa, for Tob- 
tov must apply tothe foregoing rarpia tava, but as : greater however (comp. 
xiv. 5) among these i.e. of higher value (than the two others) among these three, 
48s love. Regarding peifov with the gen. partitivus, comp. Matt. xxiii. 11. 
Hofmann has no warrant for desiderating the article ; comp. Luke ix. 46. 
Why love holds this highest place, has been already explained, vv. 1-7 ;? 
because, namely, in relation to faith love, through which it works (comp. 
Gal. v. 6), conditions its moral worth (vv. 1-3) and the moral fruitfulness of 
the life of Christian fellowship (vv. 4-7); consequently without love (which 
is divine life, 1 John iv. 8, 16) faith would be something egotistical, and 
therefore spurious and only apparent, not even existing at all as regards its 
true ethical nature ;* from which it follows at the same time that in relation 
to hope also love must be the greater, because if love fails, the hope of fu- 


? 


1 Comp. also Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 473. 

2The interpreters who take vuvi 5€ to 
mean, but for the present, follow for the most 
part Chrysostom in stating it as the higher 
worth of love, that it alone continues in 
eternity, while faith and hope, as they as- 
sume, cease. According to de Wette, Paul 
seems darkly to indicaté the truth that love 
is the root of faith and hope. But even 
apart from the fact that this is not a Pau- 
line thought, the reader could not be ex- 
pected after ver. 7 (where nothing of the 
kind is even indirectly indicated) to arrive 
at such a thought. Baur too imports what 
is not in the text when he says that Paul 


calls love the greatest, because it is what 
it is immediately, in an absolute way, and 
hence also remains always what it is. 

3 Justification, however, would be by love, 
only if perfect satisfaction were rendered 
to its requirements, which is not possible 
(Rom. xiii. 8). Hence the divine economy 
of salvation has connected justification 
with faith, the necessary fruit and evidence 
of which, however, is love. Comp. Me- 
lanchthon, ‘‘ Aliud est causa justificationis, 
aliud est necessarium ut effectus sequens 
justificationem ... ut in vivente dicimus 
necessario motum esse, qui tamen non est 
vitae causa.’’ See also Yorm. Conc. p. 688 ff. 


310 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ture glory—seeing that it can only be cherished by the true faith which 
works by love—cannot with reason exist at all (comp. Matt. xxvi. 36 ff.). 


(F*) 
Notrts spy AMERICAN EpITor. 


(vp?) The description of love. 


‘«The surpassing beauty of this chapter has been felt and expressed wher- 
ever it has been read, by persons of the most opposite religious views, and by 
those who can appreciate only its literary qualities. In the chapters that go 
before there is eloquence too, but of a very different kind—keen, impassioned, 
vehement ; the next chapter but one also rises to the height of sublimity ; but 
here all is serene. The opening verses are a grand introduction to what fol- 
lows, Sweeping away as worthless the very best things which want the cardinal 
principle of love. This is then defined by no fewer than fifteen characteristics, 
eight negative and seven positive. The terse precision and wonderful com- 
pleteness of these strike every discerning reader ; while the periods roll on in 
rhythmic melody to the end of the chapter, like a strain of richest music dying 
away, or a golden sunset ; and everything is seen out but Love, which is found 
standing alone as the enduring life of heaven’’ (Principal Brown). — ‘* The very 
style shows that it rises far above any immediate or local occasion. On each 
side of this chapter the tumult of argument and remonstrance still rages ; but 
within it, all is calm ; the sentences move in almost rhythmical melody ; the 
imagery unfolds itself in almost dramatic propriety ; the language arranges 
itself with almost rhetorical accuracy’? (Dean Stanley). 


(n’) I spake asa child. Ver. 11. 


Upon this verse Hodge well says that the feelings and thoughts of a child 
are true and just, in so far as they are the natural impression of the objects to 
which they relate. They are neither irrational nor false, but inadequate. In 
like manner our views of divine things will hereafter be different from those 
which we now have. But it does not thence follow that our present views are 
false. They are just, as far as they go; they are only inadequate. It is no 
part of the Apostle’s object to unsettle our confidence in what God now com- 
municates by His word and Spirit to His children, but simply to Preveny our 
being satisfied with the partial and imperfect. 


(F°) Love is the greatest. Ver. 13. 


The remarks. of the author on this verse hardly show his wonted acumen. 
The most satisfactory treatment of the question why Love is the greatest is 
found in the following citation from Hodge: ‘* Some say, because it includes, 
or isthe root of faith and hope. It is said that we believe those whom we love, 
and hope for what we delight in. According to Scripture, however, the reverse 
is true. Faith is the root of love. It is the believing apprehension of the 
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, that calls forth love to Him. Others 
say, the ground of superiority is in their effects. But we are said to be sancti- 
fied, to be made the children of God, to overcome the world, to be saved by 
faith. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith ; he that believes hath eternal life, 


NOTES. oie 


i.e. faith as including knowledge is eternal life. There are no higher effects 
than these, so faras we are concerned. Others say that love is superior to faith 
and hope, because the latter belong to the present state only, and love is to 
continue forever. But, according to the true interpretation of the verse, all these 
graces are declared to abide. The true explanation is to be found in the use 
which Paul makes of this word greater, or the equivalent term better, In 12, 13, 
he exhorts his readers to seek the better gifts, i.e. the more useful ones. Andin 
xiv. 5 hesays, ‘Greater is he, that prophesies, than he that speaks with tongues’; 
i.e. he is more useful. 

«Throughout that chapter the ground of preference of one gift to others is 
made to consist in its superior usefulness. This is Paul’s standard ; and 
judged by this rule, love is greater than either faith or hope, Faith saves our- 
selves, but love benefits others.’’ 

An English writer remarks that the contrast in this verse is not between love 
which is imperishable and faith and hope which are perishable, but between 
ephemeral gifts and enduring graces. It is strange how completely in popular 
thinking this has been lost sight of, and hence we find such words as these : 

* Faith will vanish into sight, 
Hope be emptied in delight, 
Love in heaven will shine more bright, 
Therefore give us love ;”’ 
which express almost the opposite of what the Apostle really wrote. The 
same may be said of the close of one of Charles Wesley’s most familiar and 
admired hymns : 


“ Where faith is sweetly lost in sight, 
And hope in full supreme delight, 
And everlasting love.” 


312 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Ver. 7. Toic ¢8dyyorc] Lachm. reads rov $9é6yyou, with B, Clar. Germ. Tol. 
Ambrosiast. Too weakly attested ; and after the preceding gwvjv diddvra (giving 
from itself) the change of the dative into the genitive (Vulgate, sonituum), and of 
the plural into the singular, was very natural. Neither ought we to read, 
instead of (> (Elz. Lachm. Tisch.), the more weakly attested d.d6 (recommended 
by Griesb.), which is a repetition from the preceding didévra. — Ver. 10. éoriv] 
Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read eiciy, following AB DEF G 8, min. Clem. Dam. 
Theophyl. The singular is an emendation, in accordance with the neuter plural. 
—atrov should be deleted, with Lachm. Riick. 'Tisch., according to prepon- 
derating testimony. A defining addition. — Ver. 13. Instead of diérep read 6:6, 
upon decisive evidence. — Ver. 15, dé] is wanting both times in F G, min. 
Vulg. It. Sahid. Syr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers ; the first time also in K, the 
second time also in B; hence Lachm. deletes only the second dé. Probably 
Paul did not write either at all, and B contains merely the insertion which was 
first made in the first half of the verse, — Ver. 18. Elz, has pov after Oc@, which 
Reiche defends, in opposition to decisive evidence, Addition from i. 4; Rom. 
i. 8 al. There is preponderating testimony for yAdooy (Lachm. Riick. Tisch.) 
in place of yAwooac, as, indeed, in this chapter generally the authorities vary 
greatly in respect of the singular and plural designation of this charisma, In 
this passage the plural was inserted because they ascribed the knowledge of 
ever so many languages to the apostle. —Aaiov] BD EF G &, 17, 67** Copt. 
Syr. utr. Vulg. It. Oec. and Latin Fathers have Aad6 (so Lachm. and Tisch.) ; of 
these, however, F G, Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have ér: before 
tavtwv. A omits 2adov altogether (which Rick. prefers, as also D. Schulz and 
de Wette). The preponderance of attestation is manifestly in favour of 2a/6, 
which is also to be regarded as the original. For the omission (A) is explained 
by the fact that the words from evyapioTd to yAdooarg Were viewed (in accord- 
ance with vv. 14-16) as belonging to each other, Other transcribers, who 
rightly saw in révtwv dudv x.T.A, the ground of the evyapiord, sought to help 
the construction, some of them by 671, some by changing 2a/6 into Aadév.. The 
latter was welcome also to those who sawin rdvTwv . . . Aaddv, not the ground, 
but the mode of the edyapioré, such as Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 271, who accord- 
ingly defends the Recepta. — Ver. 19. Elz. Tisch. read dvd rod vodc, running 
counter, it is true, to A BDEFGX, vss. and Fathers, which have 7@ voi (so 
Lachm. and Riick.), but still to be defended, because 7@ vot has manifestly come 
in from ver. 15, The very old .transcriber’s error dia rév vouov (without sov), 
which Marcion followed, tells likewise on the side of the Recepta. — Ver. 21. 
éréporc] Lachm, Riick. read érépwv, following A B &, min. Rightly ; the dative 
was written mechanically after érepoyAdooorg and yelAeoww, — Ver. 25. Elz. has 
kat obtw before ra kpuxta, in opposition to greatly preponderating evidence. 
The result seemed to begin at this point, hence the subsequent xai ottw was 
-taken in here and the otrw following was left out (so still Chrysostom). After- 


CHAP. XIV., 1. 313 


wards this second otdrw was restored again without deleting the first «al oftw. — 
Ver. 32. mvetuata] D E F G and some min, vss. and Fathers have zvevua. But 
xvetuata seemed out of place, seeing that it is the Holy Spirit that impels the 
prophets. — Ver. 34, éuov, which is defended by Reiche and Tisch., is wanting 
in A B 8, min. vss. and Fathers (deleted by Lachm. and Riick.), but was very 
liable to be omitted from its being non-essential, and from the generality of 
the precept, and is to be retained on the ground of its old (as early as Syr.) 
and sufficient attestation. — émirérpartar] éritpémeTar has greatly preponderant 
authorities in its favour. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick, 
Tisch. Rightly ; the sense of the perfect (permissum est) came more readily to 
the mind of the transcribers, both of itself and because of the prevalent refer- 
ence to the law. — drordocec$a:] Lachm. Rick. read troraccéchwcay, following 
AB 8, and some min, Copt. Bashm, Marcion, Damasc. ; an interpretation. — 
Ver. 35. yvvawi] Elz. Scholz read yvvacgi, in opposition to A B S* min. and 
several vss. and Fathers. The plural was introduced mechanically after the 
foregoing. — Ver. 37. eiciv évroAai] Many various readings. Among the best 
attested (by A B 8** Copt. Aeth. Aug.) is éoriv évtoAy. So Lachm. But D* E* 
F G, codd. of It. Or. Hil. Ambrosiast. have simply éoriv ; and this is the origi- 
nal (so Tisch.), to which évroAm was added, sometimes before and sometimes 
after, by way of supplement. The Recepta eiolv évroAai (defended by Reiche) 
arose out of the plural expression @ ypd¢w in the way of a similar gloss. —- Ver. 
38. ayvoeitw] ayvoeitat occurs in A* (apparently) D* F G S* Copt. Clar. Germ. 
Or. So Lachm. and Riick. ; Rinck also defends it. Other vss. and Fathers 
have ignorabitur. Butin the scriptio continua an Q might easily be be left out 
from dyvoeitQQorte, and then it would be all the more natural to supplement 
wrongly the defective ayvoe:r by making it dyvoeira, as it was well known that 
Paul is fond of a striking interchange between the active and passive of the 
same verb (viii. 2, 3, xiii. 12). One can hardly conceive any ground for dyvoeirat 
being changed into the imperative, especially as the imperative gives a sense 
which seems not to be in keeping with apostolic strictness and authority. 
Offence taken at this might be the very occasion of dyvoeitw being purposely 
altered into dyvoeira. 


ConTENTS.—(1) Regarding the higher value of prophecy in comparison 
with the gift of tongues, vv. 1-25. (2) Precepts regarding the application 
of the gifts of the Spirit in general, and of the two named in particular, vv. 
26-33, with an appended remark-on the silence of women, vv. 84,35. (8) 
Corroboration of the precepts given, vv. 36-88, and reiteration of the main 
practical points, vv. 39, 40. 

Ver. 1. Avéxere tr. dyarny] pursue after love ; asyndetic, but following with 
all the greater emphasis upon the praise of love, chap. xiii. ; while the figura- 
tive didx. (sectamini) corresponds to the conception of the way, xil. 31. 
Comp. Phil. iii. 12. And after Paul has thus established this normative 
principle as to seeking after the better gifts of the Spirit, he can now enter 
upon the latter themselves more in detail. —fyAoire dé «.7.4.]| With this he 
joins on again to xii. 31, yet not so as to make the dé reswmptive,—in which 
case dix. T. ayéx. would be left standing in an isolated position,—but in 
such a way that he sets over against the latter the (yAotv ra rv. as what is to 
take place along with it. ‘‘Let the end which you pursue be love ; in con- 


314 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


nection with which, however,—and upon that I will now enter more partic- 
ularly,—you are not to omit your zealous seeking after the gifts of the Spirit, 
but to direct it especially to prophecy.” Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
and Theophylact. — ra rvevyarucd] as in xii. 1, the gifts of the Spirit generally, 
not merely the glossolalia (Billroth, Ewald, comp. also Riickert), which first 
comes in at ver. 2, and that with a definite designation. Madiov dé iva 
xpod., Which is not to be read as a subordinate clause (Hofmann), represents 
and defines more closely the phrase ra yapicuara ra kpelrrova, xi. 31. MaAdov 
does not simply compare the longing for prophetic gifts with that for the 
glossolalia,—which is only done in the following verses (in opposition to Hof- 
mann),—but is to be explained : in a higher degree, however, than for the other 
gifts of the Spirit, be zealous that ye may speak prophetically.” The iva thus 
states the design of the (yActre, which we must again mentally supply (comp, 
Ver...0): 

Vv. 2, 3 give the ground of the paAdov d3 iva rpod. by comparing prophecy 
with the glossolalia in particular, which was in such high repute among the 
Corinthians.—or he who speaks with the tongue (see on xii. 10) speaks not to 
men (does not with his discourse stand in the relation of communicating to 
men), but to God, who understands the Holy Spirit’s deepest and most fer- 
vent movements in prayer (Rom. viii. 26 f.). Comp. ver. 28. — oidele yao 
axobvet] for no one hears it, has an ear for it. So too Porphyr. de Abst. iii. 22 ; 
Athen. ix. p. 383 A. What is not understood is as if it were not heard. Comp. 
Mark iv. 33 ; Gen. xi. 7, xlii. 48, and see ver. 16: ri Aéyere odk oide.2 Wieseler, 
in 1838, took advantage of dxovec in support of his theory of the soft and in- 
audible character of the speaking with tongues, against which the very ex- 
pression Aaieiv, the whole context (see especially ver. 7 f.) and the analogy 
of the event of Pentecost, as well as Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, are conclusive. 
See also on xii. 10, xiii. 1. The emphatic ob« avOp. Aadei, aaAd r. OG mili- 
tates against Fritzsche, Nov. opuse. pp. 827, 333, who takes obdele y. dxober in 
a hyperbolic sense (‘‘ nam paucissimé intelligunt, cf. Joh. i. 10, 11”). Wo one 
understands it,—that is the rule, the exceptional case being only, of course, 
that some one gifted with the yapoua of interpretation is present ; but 7m 
and of itself the speaking with tongues is of such a nature that no one under- 
stands it. Had Paul meant the speaking in foreign languages, he could all 
the less have laid down that rule, since, according to ver. 23, it was a possible 
case that all the members of the church should speak yAdéccac, and conse- 
quently there would always be some present who would have understood 
the foreign language of an address. —rvetyari d& Aadet pror.| dé—not the 
German ‘‘ sondern” (Riickert)—is the however or on the other hand frequent 
after a negative statement (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172 ; Baeumleim, p. 
95). Weare not to understand rvetyate of the objective Holy Spirit, ver. 
14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual nature of the man (different 
from the wy). This, the seat of his self-consciousness, is filled in the 
inspired man by the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), which, according to the 
different degrees of inspiration, may either leave the reflective activity of — 


1 Comp. also Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 382. 


CHAP. XIV., 4,5. . 315 


the understanding (voic, ver. 14) at work, or suspend it for the time during 
which this degree of inspiration continues. The latter is what is meant 
here, and rvetiuate Aadciv signifies, therefore, to speak through an activity of 
the higher organ of the inner life, which directly (without the medium of 
the voi¢) apprehends and contemplates the divine ; so that in rvetuaru is 
implied the exclusion of that discursive activity, which could, as in the case 
of prophecy, present clearly to itself in thought the movements and sugges- 
tions of the Holy Spirit, could work these out, connect them with things 
present, and communicate them to others in an intelligible way. — pvorfpia| 
secrets, namely, for the hearers, hence what was wnintelligible, the sense of 
which was shut up from the audience. The mysterious character of the 
speaking with tongues did not consist in the things themselves (for the 
same subjects might be treated of by other speakers also), but in the mode 
of expression, which, as not being brought about and determined by the 
intellectual activity of the voic, thereby lacked the condition connecting 
it with the intellectual activity of the hearer, for which it was only made 
ready by the interpretation. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362. — oikod. «x. 
mapakA. x. tapau.| The first is the genus, the second and third are species 
of it :' edification (Christian perfection generally) and (and in particular) 
exhortation (comp. on Phil. ii. 1) and consolation. — rapayvia, only here in 
the N. T., means address in general (Heindorf, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. 
p. 70 B), then comfort in particular ; Plato, Az. p. 365 A ; Aeschin. Dial. 
Secr, 11.85 Lucian,,| Mort. D. xv. 3; de Dea Syr. 22; Ael. V.-H. xii. 1; 
Wisd. xix. 12. Comp. on rapauifiov, Phil. ii. 1. 

Ver. 4. Difference between the relations of the two in respect of the 
mentioned oixodou#. — éavrdy] in so far, namely, as he not merely believes that 
he feels (Wetstein), but really does feel in himself the edifying influence of 
what he utters. This does not presuppose such an understanding of what 
he utters as could be communicated to others, but it does assume an impres- 
sion on the whole of a devout and elevating, although mystical kind, ex- 
perienced in his own spirit. — éxxAno.| a@ church, without the article, an as- 
sembly. 

Ver. 5. Aé] érewd7 rap’ avtoic éAddAovy yAdooae ToAAol, iva py 5bEq Jia POdvov 
KaTaoutKpivery Tac yAdooac, HéAw, dyol, rdvtac x.t.A., Theophylact. Comp. the 
dé, xii. 81. — paArov dé x.t.A.| rather, however, I wish that ye should speak pro- 
phetically. Note here the distinction between the accusative with the infinitive 
and iva after 6éAw (see on Luke vi. 31). The former puts the thing absolutely 
as object ; the latter, as the design of the 6éA# to be fulfilled by the 
readers (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 62, ed. 3) ; so that it approaches the 
imperative force (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 839). —peitov] preferable, of more 
worth, xiii. 13, because more useful for edification, vv. 6, 26.—ékrd¢ ei pq 
depp. | the case being excepted, if he interpret (what has been spoken with 
tongues). éxrd¢ ei wf is a Mixing up of two modes of expression, so that p74 





1 Ver. 4, where the olxoSouy is named significance of the two latter points: 
alone, testifies to this relation of the three ‘‘mwapd«Anors tollit tarditatem, mapauvdia 
words (in opposition to Riickert). Comp.’  tristitiam.” 

Bengel, who has noted well the edifying 


/ 


sake PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


now seems pleonastic. Comp. xv. 2; 1 Tim. v. 19. Not a Hebraism 
(Grotius), but found also in the later Greek writers (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 1; 
Soloec. 7). See Wetstein ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459. — Regarding ei with 
the subjunctive, see on ix. 11. The subject of dvepu. is not a tic to be sup- 
plied (Flatt, comp. Ewald), but 6 2a2av y2.. The passage shows (comp. ver. 
13) that one and the same person might be endowed with glossolalia and 
interpretation. (G*) 

Ver. 6. Nuvi dé] But so, i.e. but in this condition of things, since, namely, 
prophecy is greater than the speaking with tongues when left without edi- 
fying interpretation, I, if I came to you as a speaker with tongues, would 
only then be useful to you when I united with it prophetical or doctrinal 
discourse. Hofmann is wrong in wishing to refer vuvi dé to the main thought 
of ver. 5 ; in that case the second part of ver. 5 is all the more arbitrarily 
overlooked, seeing that the édv uf in ver. 6 is manifestly correlative to the 
éxroc et uf in ver. 5. Others take it otherwise. But the key to the interpre- 
tation which is in accordance with the context and logically correct lies in 
this, that the two uses of é4y are not co-ordinate (which was my own for- 
mer view), so as in that way to give to the principal clause, ri tua¢ ddeAqjou, 
two parallel subordinate clauses (comp. on Matt. v. 18) ; but, on the con- 
trary, that éav u#, corresponding to the éxrd¢ et uA, ver. 5, is subordinated to 
the first é4v. Paulmight, forsooth, instead of édv py . . . didayi have written 
simply : éav py byiv dvepunvebow. Instead of doing so, however, he specifies 
the two kinds of discourse in which he might give an interpretation of his 
speech in tongues, and says: If I shall have come to you speaking with tongues, 
what shall I profit you, if I shall not have spoken to you (for the sake, namely, 
of expounding my speech in tongues, ver. 5), either in revelation, etc. 'The 
apostle possessed the gift of glossolalia (ver. 18), but might also be his own 
duepunvertgc, and might apply to the dvepuyvetew the other apostolic charis- 
mata which belonged to him for teaching, prophecy, and didayf (xiii. 9 ; 
Acts xiii. 1). —# év dxoxad. «.7.2.] not four, but two charismatic modes of 
teaching are here designated — prophecy and didascalia. For the former, 
the condition is droxdAvyuc ; for the latter, yydore. See Estius in loc. The 
prophet spoke in an extempore way what was unfolded and furnished to him 
by revelation of the Spirit ; the teacher (if he did not simply deliver a Adyoc 
cogiac, Xil. 8) developed the deep knowledge which he had acquired by in- 
vestigation, in which he was himself active, but yet was empowered and 
guided by the Spirit. This twofold division is not at variance with xiii. 2, 
from which passage, on the contrary, it is plain that there belonged to proph- 
ecy yraow and aroxdAviic, the latter of which was not included as a condi- 
tion of the didascalia ; so that the characteristic mark of distinction in proph- 
ecyis thus the aroxaAviuc. Comp. ver. 30. — év denotes the inward (aroxai., 
yveo.) and outward (rpod., 6d.) form in which the Aadeiv takes place. Comp. 
Matt. xiii. 3. — Note further the use of the jirst person, in which Paul comes 
forward himself with all the more convincing force in support of what he 
says. 

Ver. 7. The uselessness of a discourse remaining in this way unintelligible 
is now shown by the analogy of musical instruments. — duoc] is paroxytone, 


CHAP. XIv., 7. 317 


and means nothing else than tamen (Vulgate), but is put first here and in Gal. 
iii. 15, although logically it ought to come in only before éav diacroAgy 7.2. 5 
hence it is to be explained as if the order was : ra dwvya, kairep gov. didvta, 
elte avAdc, cite Kifdpa, buwc, Edv diactoAny Tt. 60. un 06, TC yvwoOAoETaL K.T.2. 
It is rightly taken by Chr. F. Fritzsche, Nov. Opuse. p. 329. Comp. C. F. 
A. Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 52: ‘‘instrumenta vitae expertia, etiamsi sonum 
edunt, tamen, nisi distincte sonent, qui dignoscas,” etc. So Winer, also, at 
last (ed. 6; ed. 7, p. 515 [E. T. 693]), and, in like manner, Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 264 [E. T. 308]. To analyze it into ra dwuya, xairep avya, 
buwc dwvav diddvta x.t.A. (Winer formerly, comp. Riickert), brings out an 
antithetic relation which could not be expected from the context. For 
what is to be expressed is not that the instruments, although lifeless, never- 
theless sound ; but this, that the lifeless instruments, although they sound, 
nevertheless give out no intelligible melody, unless, etc. As regards the 
hyperbaton, common with classical writers also, by which éuwc, instead of 
following the participle, goes before it,’ see Matthiae, § 566, 3; Kriiger, 
§ lvi. 13. 3 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 D ; Ast, Lev. Plat. II. p. 447 ; 
Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 232. That duoc stands for éuoiwc, and should be 
accented (comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. p. 480, ed. 2) éua¢ (Faber, Alberti, 
Wetstein, Hoogeveen, and others), is as erroneous (éuw¢ means: equally, 
together) as Kypke’s assertion that the paroxytone éuwc means similiter. — 
dudvta} giving forth, as Pind. Nem. v. 93; Judith xiv. 9. rf is used of 
the voice of musical instruments in Eccles. 1. 16 ; Esdr. v. 64; 1 Mace. v. 
31, al. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 47 C ; povorxy dovf, Pol. iii. p. 897 A ; Plut. 
Mor. p. 713 C ;, Eur. Tro. 127. — édv diacroaAqy «.t.2.| If they (the awvya duviv 
dwWévra) shall not have given a distinction to the sounds, if they shall have 
sounded without bringing out the sounds in definite, distinctive modulation. 
‘* Harmoniam autem ex intervallis sonorum nosse possumus,”’ Cic. Zuse. 1. 18. 
41. Comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 7 C D, and Stallbaum in loc. — ré¢ yrwobheo. 75 add. 
x.T.A.| how shall that be recognized which is played upon the flute or upon the 
cithern ? 7.e. how can it then possibly happen that one should recognize a 
definite piece of music (a melody) from the sounds of the flute or the 
cithern? One is none the wiser from them as to what is played. The 
repetition of the article is quite correct: what is played on the flute, or 
again, inthe other supposed case, what is played upon the cithern. Riickert 
takes it as meaning, How is it possible to distinguish between flute and cith- 
ern? Inappropriate, in view of the essentially different character of the 
two instruments, and seeing that the question in the context (comp. ver. 9) 
is not as to distinguishing between the instruments, but as to understand- 
ing the melody.—It may be observed, further, that the analogy in ver. 7 
would be unsuitable, if Paul had been thinking of foreign languages, since 
these would not have lacked the d:acroA# of the sounds. This holds also in 
opposition to the view of the matter which makes it an utterance of glosses, 
as likewise in opposition to Wieseler’s conception of a soft yévoc yAwooar, 


1Not always immediately before, as Hof- also Reisig, Znarr. Oed. Col. p. xlvi. Comp., 
mann opines that Paul must have written: too, 4 Macc. xiii. 26. 
Ta auxa duws pwv, dddvta, See Jacobs, l.c.; 


' 


318 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


seeing that in ver. 7 it is not the strength of the sound, but its distinctness 
(comp. Wieseler himself in 1860, p. 114), in virtue of which it expresses a 
melody, which is the point of comparison. 

Ver. 8. Confirmation of the negative implied in ré¢ yrwoOAoerat k.7.A., bY 
another yet stronger example : for also in the case of, etc. The emphasis 
is upon odAmyé, a trumpet, the simple sounds of which are, assuredly far 
more easily intelligible as regards their meaning and design than those of 
flute and cithern. — ddniov] not clear, uncertain, gui dignesci nequeat, Beza. 
‘‘Unius tubae cantus alius ad alia vocat milites,” Bengel. Comp. gwrd¢ 
rivac aofuovc, Lucian, Alex. 13. — davAv] comp. Il. xviii. 219. — eic¢ réAeuor] 
to battle, Hom. J7. i. 177, iv. 891 ; Pind. Ol. xii. 5; Plato, Phaed. p- 66C ; 
Eccles. xxxvii. 5, xl. 6; 1 Macc. ii. 41. The signal of attack was given 
with the trumpet. Sce Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc. ; Rosenmiiller, 
Morgenl. VI. p. 110. 

Ver. 9. Inference from ver. 7 f.: accordingly, if you also, etc. — da tHe 
yAdoonc| for it was by means of the tongue that his readers brought forth so 
much unintelligible matter through their glossolalia. The tyeic dud ric 
yAooone speaking unintelligibly correspond to those instruments in vv. 7, 8 ; 
hence dua tr. yA. is put immediately after tueic, and before éav (comp. vi. 4). 
— sionuov Adyov| an easily distinguishable discourse, the meaning of which 
comes plainly out by clear and distinct words and connection. Comp. 
Soph. Ant. 1008 ; Polyb. x. 44.3; Men. ap. Athen. xiii, p. 571 E. — éceofe 
yap x.7T.A.] expressing the unsuitable relation of state, hence not the mere 
future (comp. Kiihner, II. p. 40) : for ye shall be people, who, etc. — sic dépa} 
palpably illustrates the uwselessness (what does not remain with the hearer). 
Comp. ix. 26 ; Lucretius, iv. 929 ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 334. Philo : dépo- 
pvoeiv, to speak to the wind, and aepdurboc. 

Vv. 10, 11. Another example still to induce them to lay aside this way of 
speaking. — ei rhyou] if it so happens, if it is really the case, i.e. perhaps, just 
as the mere absolute ruyédy also is employed (Isocr. Archid. 38 ; De pace, 60 ; 
Xen. Mem. vi. 1. 20, and Kiihner ¢n loc.). . So in all the passages in Wet- 
stein, Loesner, p. 293 ; Viger. ed. Herm. p. 301, which are usually adduced 
in support of what is assumed (by Riickert also) to be the meaning here : for 
example. The phrase has never this meaning, and merely its approximate 
sense can be so expressed,* and that always but very unexactly, in several 
passages (such as xv. 37 ; Lucian, Amor. 27). And in the present case this 
sense does not suit at all, partly because it would be very strange if Paul, 
after having already adduced flutes, citherns, and trumpets as examples, 
should now for the first time come out with a ‘‘for example,” partly and 
chiefly because ¢ rhyor is a defining addition, not to the thing itself (yévn 
dwvav), but to its quantity (to tocaira). Comp. Lucian, Jcarom. 6: Kai ro- 
Adkic, et THyaL, unde dr6o0t oTAdioL Meyapdbev ’AOAvaté elowv, aKpLBOo ErLoTa[EVOL. 
Paul, namely, had conceived to himself under rocaira a number’ indefinite, 
indeed, but very great ;? and he now takes away from this conception its 


1 This also in opposition to Hilgenfeld, indefinite expression by et r¥xor (in opposi- 
Glossol. p. 24. ; tion to Hilgenfeld). 
2 For this reason he could limit even the 


CHAP. XIV., 12. al19 


- demonstrative certainty by ei tbyor : in so great multitude, perhaps, there are 
different languages in the world. Billroth, too, followed by Olshausen, takes 
ei rbyoe in itself rightly, but introduces an element of irony, inasmuch as he 
quite arbitrarily takes rocatvra. . . kai ovdév for boa. . . rooavTa, and, in 
doing so, makes ¢ riyor even reach over to the second clause: ‘‘as many 
languages as there are, probably just so many have sense and significance.” 
— On ei with the optative, expressing the mere conjecture, it may suffice to 
refer to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 902. — yévn dwvdr] t.e. all sorts of different 
languages, each individual unit of which is a separate yévo¢ gwvav. The op- 
posite 1s gavy pia aor, Gen. xi. 1. — oidév] namely, yévoc gwvév. Bleek ren- 
ders it, contrary to the context : no rational being. Similarly Grotius and 
others, so that airév in the Textus receptus would apply to men. Comp. van 
Hengel, Annot. p. 194 f., who supplies é6vo¢ with oidév. — ddwvov] speechless, 
z.e.no language is without the essence of a language (comp. Bio¢ aBiwroc, and 
the like, in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229 f. ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 612 ; Jacobs, 
Del. epigr. 1. 33), i.e. unintelligible, and that absolutely, not merely for him, 
to whom it is a foreign tongue (ver. 11). —oiv] therefore, draws its argu- 
ment, not from the great multitude of the languages (Hofmann), which, in 
truth, is not at all implied in what is contained in ver. 11, but from oidév 
ddwvov. For were the language spoken to me (r#¢ gov.) ddwvoc, and so un- 
intelligible in itself, I could not in that case appear even as a barbarian to 
the speaker, because, in fact, what he spoke would be understood by no man. 
The barbarian (GapBapddwvoc, Herod. vii. 20, ix. 43) speaks only a foreign 
language, not one altogether devoid of meaning for others. — rv diva tie 
dwrvic| the signification, the sense of the language (which is being spoken). 
Polyb. xx. 9,11; Lucian, Wigr. 1,al. Comp. Herod. ii. 30; Plat. Huthyd. 
p. 286 C. —év éuoi] with me, i.e. in my judgment. See Valckenaer, ad Hur. 
Hipp. 324 ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hel. 996 ; Winer, pp. 362, 204 [E. T. 483, 273]. 


RemarxK.—Paul has chosen dwv7 to denote language, because in the whole sec- 
tion he has only the meaning tongue in his mind for yAéoca. To instruct his 
readers regarding the speaking with tongues, he uses the analogy of speaking 
languages. Hofmann resorts to the suggestion that Paul must have used g¢wrv7 
here, because he would not have expressed what xa? oidév ddwrov was designed 
to convey by x. oidév dyAwooov. That is incorrect ; for dyAwooov would have 
conveyed the very same thimg (speechless, Poll. ii. 108; Soph, Trach, 1060 ; 
Pind. Nem. viii. 41) with the very same point (et nullum elingue), if he had used 
yAéooed instead of duv7. 


Ver. 12. Inference, which the readers have to draw from ver. 10 f. 
“‘ Therefore (itaque), seeing, namely, that the unintelligible speaking is, 
according to ver. 10 f., something so absurd, seek ye also, since ye are indeed 
zealous after spirits, with a view to the edification of the church therein, that ye 
may have abundance.” The oirw x. iueic, which is repeated here, must be 
related to ver. 10 f., just as the oitw x. dueic in ver. 9 is to ver. 7 f., and 
may not therefore be made to refer to all that precedes it back as far as ver. 
6 (Hofmann). As the former oitw x. tyeic set, forth an inference for warn- 
ing, so the present one infers the requisite precept, and for both what in 


320 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

each case immediately precedes serves as the premiss. —IIpd¢ rt. oikod. 7. 
éxkAyo. has the emphasis (in opposition to Hofmann). The absurdity re- 
ferred to is meant to point the readers, with their zealous striving after gifts 
of the Spirit, to the right way, namely, that with a view to the edification of the 
church * they should seek after ever richer endowments. Consequently it is 
just as superfluous to isolate otro x. tueic asa sentence by itself (revéc in 
Theophylact, Mosheim, Flatt, Heydenreich), which, moreover, would be 
quite unsuitable in respect of sense, as it is to assume a suppressed inference 
after ver. 11 (Kstius, Rickert). — Kai iuveic] you too ; for the Corinthians 
were in fact to form no exception from this general maxim, as in their striv- 
ing after higher charismata, and especially after the gift of speaking with 
tongues, seemed, alas, to be the case !—émel (yAwrai éore rvevu.] on which 
account you have all the more need of the right regulative ! <A pointed hint 
for the readers, the force of which they could doubtless feel for them- 
selves. — rvevudtwr] the genitive of the object, to which the zealous striving 
relates. The plural expression is purposely chosen xara Td davdéuevov (comp. 
Hofmann) in keeping with the emulous doings at Corinth. -For the specifi- 
eally different manifestations, In which-the manifold working of the One 
Spirit displayed itself, assumed indeed, in presence of such jealous seeking 
and striving, such an appearance to the eyes of the observer of this unseemly 
state of things, as though not one Spirit, but a plurality of spirits, differing 
in kind and importance, were the object of the rivalry. What were dracpé- 
cere yapiouatov, and hence only different gavepdcece rod mvevuatoc, presented 
themselves, as matters stood at Corinth, to the eye and pen of the apostle 
IIvevudrwv, therefore, is just as far from standing for 
mvevuatixov (Beza, Piscator, Storr, Flatt, and others) as it is from denoting the 
glossolalia (Heydenrich, Billroth).? To suppose a real plurality of spirits, 
after the analogy of the persons possessed by a number of evil spirits (see 
Hilgenfeld, p. 52 f.), so that a number of divine spirits would be meant, is 
at variance with the N. T. generally, and at variance with xii. 4, 7 ff. — iva 


meptoo.| Ovx elmev’ iva kT HONnOOE Ta yapiouata, GAW iva TWEptooEedyTe, 


as dlaipécete TvEVvUaTur. 


tovtéotiv iva Kai peta Oapiheiacg ToAdie avTa Ente’ TooovTOV yap aréyYw TOV L:7) 
Bobaccha Eye buag avta, btt Kal repiocetery buac év aitolc BobAowat, wdvov av Ei¢ 
TO KOLVh cvudépov aiTa peTayerpiCyte, Chrysostom. — iva] sets before us the 
object of the striving as its design, as at ver. 1, iv. 2.— What we are to 
conceive as the contents of the repiccetew (to have to the full, viii. 8 ; Phil. 


1 pos T. oik, T. exxdA. belongs to gnretre, not 
to mepioo. (Grotius and many others), be- 
cause Paul has not written : ¢nrectte, mpos 7. 
That would be the 
correct way of putting it first with the 
emphasis, if it were meant to belong to 
mepioo., 2-Cor. fi. 4; Gal. ii. 10; Acts xix. 4. 
This also in opposition to Hofmann, who 
takes mp. 7. otx. T. éxxaA, as Only a subordinate 
thought (‘‘ which then comes to be profit- 
able for the edification of the church’’) be- 
longing to meptoo. The edification of the 
church is in truth just the normative test 


Oik T. EKKA, twa. TEpLoG, 


for the appreciation and right pursuit of 
the charismata (vv. 8,4, 17, 26; Eph. iv. 12, 
16). The article before oixod. does not de- 
note the edification already otherwise taking 
place, but is simply = mpds 75 oixodopetaOar Tr. 
éxxAnoiavy, Paulmight either put it or leave 
it out (ver. 26; Rom. xy.2; Eph. iv. 29). 

2 The endeavour to be a speaker with 
tongues was rather only a particular mode, 
in which the mvevpata ¢ndodv, this general 
tendency, came into manifestation espe- 
cially in Corinth. 


CHAP. XIv., 13, 14. O21 


i. 9, iv. 12, al.) is self-evident, namely, what was previously meant by 
mvevudtwv, spiritual gifts. 
Ver. 13. Ipocevyéobw iva duepy.| is taken by Chrysostom, Theodoret, The- 


ophylact, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, 


Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bleek, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, 
Hofmann, in the sense of : let him pray for the gift of interpretation. But 
against this ver. 14 is decisive, where the zpocetyeo@a, linked by yap to 
what precedes, must have the same reference with our zpocetyeoOa in ver. 13. 
Bleek’s objection, that we find et yapror@ in ver. 18.standing in a different ref- 
erence than previously, does not hold good, since vv. 17 and 18 do not stand 
in direct logical connection (as vv. 12 and 14 do), but, on the contrary, with 
ver. 18 there begins a section of the discourse distinct from the preceding. 
Without taking iva, with Luther, Vorstius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller (comp. 
already Photius in Oecumenius), as meaning so that, the right translation 
is: let him pray in the design, in order to interpret (afterwards what has 
been prayed yAdéooy). Comp. Billroth, David Schulz, Winer, de Wette, 
Osiander, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Ewald, Maier. The previous general Aaieiv is 
thus represented here by rpocebyeofa, i.e. more precisely described as what 
it was, as address in prayer see vv. 14-17. It is objected that ver. 27 mili- 
tates against this view (see Riickert); that.the person praying yAdooy could 


not have had that design, because he did not know whether the interpreta- 


tion would be given to him (Hofmann). But our explanation does not in 
fact assume that every man who spoke with tongues was capable of inter- 
preting ; but, on the contrary, that Paul, in ver. 13, was thinking only of 
such speakers with tongues as possessed also the gift of interpretation (ver. 
5). The apostle still leaves out of view the case in which the speaker was 
not also interpreter (ver. 28); hence we are not to take it with Ewald : 
“‘that people may interpret it.” The subject is the speaker himself (ver. 14 
ff.), as in ver. 5. 

Ver. 14. Justification of the precept mposevy. iva duepu. — Yor if I pray 
with my tongue, my spirit prays; but my understanding is unfruitful. Tt isa 
thoroughly arbitrary and mistaken procedure to take the genitive relation 
in 70 rvevud wov Otherwise than in 6 voi¢ wov, and to explain the former, with 
Bleek, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, and Chr. F. Fritzsche, following Chrys- 
ostom (7d yapicua 7d dofév por kat Kevodv THY yAdooar), Of the Spirit of God, in 
80 far as He has laid hold of the man and speaks out of him. The Holy Spirit, 
although in the man, is never called the spirit of the man, and cannot be so 
called, just because He is different from the spirit of the man. See ii. 11 ; 
Rom. vill. 16,ix.1. No; 76 rvevud pov is my spirit, i.e. my individual prin- 
ciple of higher life (comp. on ver. 2). If I pray with the tongue, this higher 
life-power in me, which plunges immediately (¢.e. without the intervention 
of the discursive reflective faculty) into the feelings and intuitions of the 
divine, is called into activity, because it is filled and moved by the Holy 
Spirit as His receptive organ ; but my understanding, my thinking faculty, 
Jurnishes nothing, ixapro¢ éott.1—voi¢g in contrast to rvedtwa, Which is the 


1 Namely, to edify the church by the praying; see ver. 12. Chrysostom, Theoph- 


322 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


deeper basis of life, the ‘‘penetrale”’ (Bengel) of the voc, is the reflective 
discursive power through which the making oneself intelligible to those 
without is effected, and without the co-operative action of which the human 
mvevua cannot with such one-sided development of its energy express the 
contents of its converse with the Divine Spirit in such a way as to be intel- 
ligible for others who are not specially gifted for thisend. Comp. Krumm, 
de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 64 ff. ; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 184 ; Ernesti, Urspr. 
d. Siinde, II. p. 87 f. Note how definitely Paul here distinguishes the specific 
activities of the mind, and excludes the voic from the glossolalia, And he 
speaks thus from experience. But were we to think of foreign languages, 
that distinction and exclusion would not be appropriate, or would resolve 
themselves into a mere self-deception. 

Ver. 15. Ti oby éorc;| what then takes place? How then does the matter 
stand ? namely, in consistency with the foregoing, ¢.e. what follows then ? 
Comp. ver. 26 and Acts xxi. 22, and the classical and N. T. phrases : ri obv; 
ti yap ; by which we are prepared in a vivid way for what is to follow. See 
generally, Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 846 £. — rpooetEouac| the future denotes 
what in consistency will be done by me. The hortatory subjunctive in both 
clauses (zpocetfwuat, A D E FG) is a bad emendation, which in xy is carried 
out only in the first clause. — zpoceté. x. TH voi] (dative of instrument) is to 
be understood, in accordance with ver. 14, of the interpretation following, 
which the person speaking with tongues gives of his tongue-prayer (xpocevy. 
7¢@ wv.) in a way suited to the understanding, and by consequence intelligi- 
ble. — ada] applies to improvised psalms, which in the glossolalia were sung 
with the spirit, and after an intelligible manner in the way of interpretation. 
Comp. generally on Eph. v. 19. 

Ver. 16. ’Ezei] for, without this waArev xa 76 voi, t.e. otherwise (xv. 29 ; 
Rom. iii. 6, al.), the layman, in fact, when thou praisest with the spirit, — 
cannot say the Amen, etc. — eiAoyeiv and eiyapioreiv denote substantially one 
and the same thing, the thanksgiving prayer, the former word referring more 
to the form of praise to God (1373), the latter more to its contents. Comp. 
on x. 16; Matt. xiv. 19. — dvarAnpoiv rt. rérov tivéc, to jill the place of any 
one, is not a Hebraism (9 Dip ND), in the sense of in statu et conditione 
alicujus esse (see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2001), but corresponds to the Greek 
expressions : rAnpovv TAY yopav, to occupy the place, avarAnpoty tAv Edpav 
(Plat. Zim. p. 79 B), and the like, so that réro¢ is not to be taken in the 
abstract sense of position (in opposition to de Wette, Hofmann), but applies 
quite literally to the place in the assembly. With this is improperly compar- 
ed Josephus, Gell. v. 2. 5, where wehave not rérov, but rdéw. And he who 
occupies the place of the layman is, according to the connection, every one in 
the assembly who is not endowed with glossolalia or its interpretation. Where 
he sits is, in this particular relation (be he himself even a prophet or teach- 
er), the place of the layman. Paul speaks vividly, as if he saw the assembly 


ylact, Calvin, Estius, and others errone- 1 Even in passages like Clem. @d Cor. 
ously hold it to apply to one’s own profit. I. 40. 44, roros is not the abstract ‘‘ position,” 
Theodoret rightly remarks: kapwds tod but the post, the place which aman has in 
A€yovTos 7) MpEeAcLa THY AKOVOVTWY, the hierarchy or polity of the church. 


CHAP. XIV., 17-20, O29 


before his mind’s eye. Regarding idséry¢ (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6), which, like 
our layman, obtains its definition from the context in each case, see on Acts 
iv. 13. — réc¢ épei| how is it (reasonably) possible that he shall say.—The cus- 
tom, arising out of the time-hallowed usage in connection with oaths, 
imprecations, vows, prayers, etc. (Num. v. 22 ; Deut. xxvii. 15 ff.; Neh. 
vill. 6, al.), that the audience at the close of a public prayer should express 
their assent, and their faith in its being heard, by amen, was introduced 
among the Christians from the synagogues (Buxt. Lex. Talm. sub voce }D8 ; 
Vitringa, de Synag. p. 1093 ; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 654 ff.; Wetstein), and 
has in this passage apostolic confirmation.*— 7d au#v] the amen to be pro- 
nounced by him. — ézi] to thy prayer, to which the amen isadded. Observe 
the of bringing the matter into prominence. (1°) 

Ver. 17. For thow indeed (by thyself considered) wtterest an excellent 
thanksgiving-prayer. 'This Paul admits, and with reason, since the speaker 
prayed td rice Oeiac évepyobuevoc ydpitoc (Theodoret). — 6 érepoc] 6 avarAnpédv 
Tov Térov Tov idiHtov, ver. 16. (1°) 

Vv. 18, 19. Confirmation by the apostle’s own example of what has been 
said against the public speaking with tongues. — JI thank God, more than 
you all speak I with the tongue, ina higher degree than you all I have this 
charisma. Such direct modes of expression, instead of a connecting 671, 
occur likewise in Greek writers ; see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 460 A ; Har- 
tung, Partikell. T1. p. 1384 ; Kithner, § 760 a. Even the Recepta zarv would 
have to be taken as stating the ground of the evyap. 76 Och (comp. Xi. 29 ; 
Acts iv. 21, al.), not, with Reiche (whom Hofmann follows in his explana- 
tion of this reading, which, however, he rightly rejects), as referring to the 
manner of it (I make more frequently and more fervently than any of you 
thanksgiving prayers in glossolalia to God). There would thus result a 
declaration, the tenor of which hardly suits the character of the apostle, as 
indeed such an unconditionally expressed assertion could not be upheld by 
him. MdaAAov can only denote the greater measure of the endowment; see 
already in Chrysostom. — év éxxi.] in theassembled church, opposite of private 
devotion. — 6éAw 7| The preferential will (malle) is implied in the logical re- 
lation of the relative verbal notion to the particle, without there being any 
need of supplying paddov. See Hartung, Il. p. 723; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
589 f.; Bacumlein, Partik. p. 136. 

Ver. 20. Up to this point Paul has been contending against speaking 
with tongues in public and without interpretation, on the ground of its use- 
lessness. He now adds an animated and winning admonition, well calcu- 
lated to meet the conceit of the Corinthians on this point. — ddeAdoi] ‘‘ suavem 
vim habet” (Bengel). — Become not children as respects your power of judg- 
ment. Wis readers were becoming so, inasmuch as, through their increas- 
ing craving after glossolalia, they lacked more and more the power of dis- 
tinguishing and judging between the useful and the useless ; their speaking 
with tongues assumed the character of childishness. As regards malice (v. 


1*Vult Deus consensum esse ecclesiae in doctrina, fide, invocatione et petitione,’’ ete.— 
Melanchthon. ; 


324 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
8), on the other hand be children ; have a child-nature in quite another 
respect, namely, by being free from all malicious thoughts and actions 
(Matt. xviii. 3). Comp. Rom. xvi. 19; Gal. vi. 3; Tit. 1.10; Lucian, 
Hale. 2: varcérne gpevov. — Regarding vyridfevv, to be a child (in Greek writers 
also vyridye and vyriayebev), comp. Hipp. Hp. p. 1281. 52. —réAewor] of 
Jull age, adultus. See Plat. Legg. xi. p. 929 C. Comp. on Eph. iy. 13. 
Ver. 21. You go against Scripture with your foolish doings! This is the 
theological side of the judgment, which Paul now further brings forward, 
before he imparts in ver. 26 ff. the final precepts for the right procedure. — 
véuoc] of the O. T. generally. See on Rom. iii. 19 ; John x. 34. — The 
passage is Isa. xxvili. 11, 12 in a very free’ variation from the LXX. — ér:] 
for, °>, belongs, with the rest, to the Scriptural quotation (LXX. : 671 Aarq- 
covet Ty Aa@ TobTw), and has here therefore no reference in the context. — 
The historical sense of the original text (in which Jehovah threatens to send 
Joreign-speaking men, i. e. barbarians, upon the kingdom of Judah, etc.) is 
taken up typically by Paul in such a way that he, looking back from the 
phenomenon of the present upon that prophetic utterance, recognizes in it 
the Christian glossolalia divinely foreshadowed, as regards its substance, 
namely, in the characteristic év érepoyAdéoooe . . . érépoioc, and, as regards 
its destination, in kai ov obtwe eicax. — év érepoyAdooo K.t.2.| in peoples of 
another tongue (conceived of as organs of the visiting God, who speaks in 
their persons ; hence évy, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3 ; Heb. i. 2) and in lips of others 
(érépwv, see the critical remarks) will I speak to this nation. According to 
the original teat, the reference is to people who speak a foreign language (the 
Assyrian, comp. xxxiii. 19), and to lips of foreigners (other than Israelites) ; 
but the similarity of the relation, which presents itself in the type and anti- 
type, consists in the extraordinary phenomenon of the strange divine speak- 
ing, which becomes perceptible in the case of the type in the foreign lan- 
guage, in that of the antitype in the character of the glossolalia, so wholly 
different from ordinary intelligible speech. In virtue of this unintelligibil- 
ity, the speaking in tongues also was for the hearers a speaking in strange 
tongues, and he who spoke was not one like-tongued, 7.e. using the like 
language (éuéyAwoooc, Xen. Cyrop. i. 1. 5 ; Herod. i, 17, viii. 144 ; Lucian, 
Scyth. 3, de Salt. 64), but a strange-speaking man (érepdyAwoooc, Polyb. xxiv. 
9, 5 ; Strabo, viii. p. 388; Aq. Ps. cxiii. 1), and his lips a stranger’s lips. - | 
What isin the original text : N78 }}W93, Paul renders more freely than the _ 
LXX. (did yaécone érépac), and making it personal, by év érepoyAdocore 5° the 


1 Hence (and on account of the quite 
general ev r. vouw) Ewald derives the words 
froma source now unknown to us. Still, 
fora typical reference to the speaking with 
tongues, Isa. xxviii. 11 f. is characteristic 
enough. But if Paulhad this passage in his 
eye, he must have understood it of men 
speaking foreigniy, not, as Ewald explains 
the prophetic words, of the language of the 
thunder and of terrible punishment. 

2 Wieseler in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1838, p. 
734 ff., infers from our passage that Paul 


recognizes a double formula for the gift of 
tongues, a shorter one, yA. A., and a longer, 
érép, yA. A. Certainly too wide an inference, 
since in no other place does the apostle 
bring forward the characteristic element of 
érépats. He was using the quotation in 
order to prove the destination of the glos- 
solalia for unbelievers, but could not use da 
davrtopov xerAéwv, Which besides the LXX. 
has incorrectly, and therefore altered it in 
accordance with the parallel in the passage, 
dud yA. érépas. We may infer consequently — 


GHAPY XIV., 22. 329 
Hebrew DY apoa, again (through stammerers of the lip, i.e. through men 
speaking unintelligibly, because in a strange tongue, he renders more cor- 
rectly as regards the general sense than the LXX. (who have erroneously 
did gavdicpov yetdéwr, on account of mockery of the lips, comp. Hos. vii. 16) by 
év yeild. érép., putting it, however, impersonally, and reversing the order of 
the two clauses. It may be added that it is clear, from the parallel yeiAeow 
that Paul conceived of yAdooa in érepoyAdoooe as ‘‘ tongue,” as wy also is 
conceived of in the original text,—both as instrument of the Aaieiv. The 
tongue is dyyedog Adéywv, Eur. Suppl. 205. —7@ 4a robrw| applying in its 
historical meaning to the disobedient people of Jsrael, which, however, is a 
type of those who reject the Christian faith, represents therefore the latter 
in the view of the apostle. (J*) — Kai oid’ otrwc| and not even so, dealt with 
by such a measure, will they hearken to me (obey me, Ecclus. ili. 6, xxxix. 3; 
and in classical writers). This second half of the passage is, for the demon- 
stration, the main point. See ver. 22. 

Ver. 22. "Qore| Accordingly, namely, in accordance with this oid’ ovtwe 
éloaxove. pov. —eic onpueiov x.t.A.| The phenomenon of the speaking with 
tongues is destined for a (divine) sign, not for the believers, but for the unbeliev- 
ers, 1.e. to make those to whom the glossolalia goes forth be recognized as unbelievers. 
This view alone corresponds to the express oid’ ottwe eicaxovc. pwov from 
which the inference is drawn, as well as to what is further inferred in ver. 
23. At variance, on the other hand, with both stands the interpretation 
which has been the ordinary one since Chrysostom (and which has hitherto 
been my own), that the speaking with tongues is called a sign for the un- 
believers, because it was intended to arrest and move them so that they should 
reflect and become believers. Equally unsuitable is it that Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, and others, including Hofmann, only half carry out this tradition- 
al interpretation, and stop short at the impression of something astounding 
and amazing, whereby the yAdéooa are to be a onueiov to the unbelievers, 
which, moreover, in presence of the notion. of a divine ojyeiov, could only 
appear as a means to an ulterior end. We must keep the oiv oftwe eicaxoia. 
pov Sharply before us in order to determine accurately the notion of the 
onueiov k.T.A. Billroth, moreover (comp. Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Corne- 
lius 4 Lapide, and others), is in error in holding that oyyeiov is a penal sign, 
or a sign of divine judgment ; comp. also Hilgenfeld, p. 21 ; Rossteuscher, 
-p. 77. This, in fact, is not at all implied in ver. 21, where, on the con- 
trary, the glossolalia appears as a last extraordinary measure remaining like- 
wise without result, which will at length make full exposure of the disobedi- 
ence of the persons in question, but not as a sign of wrath. And had Paul 
thought of irae signum, he must have expressed the irae too, and, in fact, 
brought it emphatically forward.’ Again Storr, Flatt, Baur, and Dav. 


from our passage only thus much, that the 
glossolalia as regards its nature could be de- 
scribed in the way of application by év éte- 
poyAwaocots and év xeiAcow Etépwv Aadrecv, but 
not that yA. Aad. and érép. yA. Aad. Were two 
current formulae for denoting the speaking 
with tongues. Hencealso we are not, with 


Hirzel in the Stud. u. Arit. 1840, p. 121 ff., to 
infer from this passage the originality of 
the designation érépats yAdaoats Aare. 

1 According to Billroth’s view, namely, 
Paul warns the Corinthians that they should 
not thoughtlessly foster among themselves 
a thing which is called in the O, T. a sign of 


326 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Schulz (Geistesg. pp. 78, 176) are wrong in saying that the prevalence of the 
glossolalia in the church was a sign of their unbelief. This is unsuitable for 
this reason, that according to vv. 21, 23 we are to conceive as the dmoro 
not those who speak yAdcoac, but those who are spoken to in ya. — toic ario- 
toc] Dative of the reference in view, as is also roi¢ mictebovorv. The con- 
ception of the arora, however, is, by virtue of this very antithesis (and 
see also vv. 28, 24), simply the non-believing, the unbelievers,—a conception 
which is neither to be softened down to that of non-genuine Christians or the 
like (Flatt, David Schulz), nor intensified to that of obstinate unbelievers, 
those wholly uwnsusceptible of faith, infideles privative (Neander, Billroth, 
Riickert). Hirzel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 120 ff. (who is followed in 
substance by de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Engelmann, and see Bengel’s hints 
of earlier date), understands by the aziorove those who do not wish to believe, 
and by the zvoretovow those who wish to believe.’ Comp. de Wette: ‘‘ They 
are not heard by such as let themselves be moved thereby to believe, but by such 
as remain unbelieving.” This is conclusively negatived by the prevailing use 
of of rorebovtec and oi dzoror, to Which any such artificial pregnancy of mean- 
ing is quite alien (see immediately, vv. 23, 24). — 7 dé mpogyreia x.t.A.| a con- 
trast, which is not intended to be inferred from that passage of Scripture, — 
which in truth says nothing whatever about the rpodyrebexv,—but the truth of 
which was self-evident to the readers in virtue of an argumentum e contrario. 
Weare not, however, to supply the simple éori, so that the meaning would be : 
not to the unbelievers, but to the believers, is the prophetic address to be di- 
rected (my own view hitherto), but rather ei¢ onueiév éoriv, for Paul has not 
written éorvv at all, and therefore leaves the predicate of the first half of the 
verse to operate still in virtue of the antithesis. Consequently : prophecy 
is designed to be a sign not for the unbelievers, but for the believers, i.e. in order 
to make those to whom the prophetic address is directed known as believers ; see 
ver. 24, where this statement of the apostle is verified by the fact that such 
as come into the Christian assembly as unbelievers, being won over by the 
overpowering impression of the prophetic addresses, submit themselves to 
Christianity and declare themselves believers. Erasmus, Grotius, and Bleek 
are wrong in holding that oi means non tantum. The negation is absolute, 
asin the preceding clause. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 784. Accord- 
ing to Hirzel (de Wette and Osiander), the meaning here also is alleged to 
be : prophecy is given not for such as do not wish to believe, but for such 
as wish to believe. 


in faith and those who are becoming believ- 
ers, and holds that on this account Paul did 
not write rots murrots. As if ot meorevovtes 


punishment. Comp. Beza and Cornelius & 
Lapide, also Calovius. Upon this view, 
Paul must have absolutely disapproved of the 


glossolalia. It would have been a tempt- 
ing of God by the abuse of a divine sign of 
curse. 

1 Hofmann also understands by tots amic- 
tots those indisposed to believe. As if Paul 
would not have known how to express this 
conception! Hofmann even conceives two 
elasses to be comprehended under tots 
muotevovowv, namely, those already standing 


were not with the apostle quite the usual 
expression for the believers (i. 21; Rom.i. 
16, fil. 22, x, 4: Gal. iil, 223 Eph, 4, 30,a2.); 
who ave such, but not for those, or so as to 
include those, who are only decoming such. 
The mcortevovtes are not at all different from 
the marots (2 Cor. vi. 15; Eph. i. 1; Col. 
12): 


CHAP. XIV:, 23. Or? 


Ver. 23. What, then, will be the effect of the speaking with tongues, which 
you all so much desire, upon ungifted persons or unbelievers? If such come into 
your church when you are assembled together, and get nothing else there to hear 
Srom any of you but glossolalia, so far will they be from declaring themselves as 
believers upon your speaking with tongues, that, on the contrary, they will declare 
you to be mad. — oiv] draws an inference from ver. 22 in such a way that 
ver. 23 corresponds to the first, and ver. 24 f. to the second half of ver. 22. 
— ravtec| Paul does not suppose that all those assembled speak together in 
a confused, tumultuous way (Cornelius & Lapide and others ; comp. also 
Maier), a that all in succession hold glossolaliae, and only tit —not ad- 
dresses of any other kind. For, if all spoke together and pontisedly even. 
in the case of prophecy it could make no impression (ver. 24). — id:éraz] is 
not to be understood otherwise than in ver. 16: Christians who are not 
endowed with glossolalia, or with the gift of understanding it. 'The context, — 
however, shows by the foregoing éayv . . . airé that those meant are un- 
gifted persons from any extraneous church, who come into the church at 
Corinth when in full assembly. Were the stranger who entered not an un- 
gifted person, but one who himself spoke with tongues or interpreted, his 
judgment respecting the gift which he himself possessed or understood 
would, of course, not take the same form. All explanations which deviate 
from the meaning of the word in ver. 16 are on that very account to be 
rejected, such as not only that of most of the old interpreters, with Billroth 
and Chr. F. Fritzsche: ‘‘such as do not understand foreign languages,” 
but also that of Theodoret, David Schulz, Flatt, Olshausen (also Riickert, 
although with hesitation): ‘‘ beginners in Christianity; comp. Pelagius, 
Thomas, Estius: ‘‘nuper credentes, neophyti ;’ Melanchthon: ‘‘rudis qui 
primum coepit catechismi doctrinam audire,” comp. Neander. Riickert 
suggests that Paul is supposing the case that the glossolalia should break 
out somewhere suddenly and for the first time, and there should then come 
in Christians who knew nothing of it and, not being present, had not been 
affected by the paroxysm, and non-Christians. But the suggestion is to be 
dismissed, because there is no mention of the ‘‘ suddenly and for the first 
time,” which would in that case be the main thing. Hirzel and de Wette 
hold erroneously, because in opposition to ver. 16,* and not to be estab- 
lished even by 2 Cor. xi. 6, that the idiéra are non-Christiags (so, too, 
Ulrich in the Stud. uw. Krit. 18438, p. 420, and Hofmann), in which case they 
are in various arbitrary ways distinguished from the dicro., namely, by 
- Hirzel? asserting that the dz. are heathen, the id. Jews; by de Wette, that 
the former were still more aloof from believing than the latter ; by Ulrich, 
that the id. were persons wnacquainted with Christianity, the az. those ac- 
quainted with it indeed, but unbelieving and (Hofmann) hostile towards it. 
Not the id:dra, but the amoro:, are the non-Christians (who are never called 
id.), aS in ver. 22. We may add that Grotius remarks rightly : ‘‘ Solebant 


1 For in ver. 23 and ver. 16 the conception opposition to Hirzel, Ulrich, Hofmann, who 
of idtmrat is determined by a like context— assume that ver. 16 cannot regulate the ex- 
namely, by the same contrast to those gifted planation of iSwwrys in ver. 23 f. 
with the glossolalia. This we remark in 2 Comp. van Hengel, Gave d. talen, p. 94. 


328 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


enim pagani”’ (and Jews also) ‘‘ adire Christianorum ecclesias ad videnda 
quae ibi agebantur.” Their admission (certainly not to the Agapae, how- 
ever) was the less a matter for hesitation, since it might become a means of 
their conversion. Comp. generally, Harnack, Gemeindegottesd. p. 143 ff. — 
bre paivecde| that you (Christians in Corinth) are foolish, and out of your 
senses, because, namely, you collectively and without exception carry on a 
kind of converse so unintelligible and meaningless for the hearers. Olshau- 
sen strangely holds that the verdict expressed is: ‘‘ We see, doubtless, that 
you are possessed by a God; but there is no prophet here ; we do not 
understand what the god says to us!” An unwarranted explaining away 
of the clear import of the word : yaivecOac means insanire, just as in Acts 
xxvi. 24. The verdict of drunkenness passed by the unbelievers in Acts 
ii. 13 presents a remarkable analogy. — Observe, further: (1) Here idséraz is 
put jirst, and droro follows, because the idiéra, as Christians, and there- 
’ fore acquainted with the uselessness and absurdity of the glossolalia without 
interpretation and to the exclusion of all other (intelligible) discourse, 
come here into the foreground,’ and may and will be the first to pass the 
judgment 67: paivecbe; in ver. 24, on the contrary, dzoroc stands first, 
because conversion is spoken of, and hence ‘‘ praecipue agitur de infideli ; 
idiota obiter additur ob rationem ejus non plane disparem” (Bengel). (2) 
In ver. 23, since Paul designs to cite the judgment in the form of an utter- 
ance (épovo.v), which is most naturally conceived of by him as a mutual com- 
munication, the plural cicéAOwcr x.7.2. presented itself with as much appro- 
priateness as the singular eicéAOy x.7.2. does in ver. 24, where the apostle 
wishes to depict specially the converting work, vv. 24, 25, in its course, 
which, from the nature of the case, is done most befittingly in an individu- — 
alizing representation. 

Vv. 24, 25. How wholly different, on the other hand, will the effect of 
general prophetic speaking be upon such persons !. Arrested and humbled 
before God, they will declare themselves believers. — éav dé mavre¢ mpod. | 18 
to be completed in accordance with ver. 23 : édv dé ovvéAOy 4 éxkA. bAn ext TO 
aitd K. TavTE¢ Tpod. —-idLaTye] according to the context : one not prophetically 
gifted, and, indeed, coming likewise from an extraneous church. Comp. on 
ver. 23. — Prophecy, from its nature, was generally intelligible ; but who- 
ever had not its ydpioua could not speak prophetically, and such a one was 
in presence of this gift an «diotes. — édéyyerar bxd wdvt.| The characteristic 
power of prophecy (ver. 22), by which you all mutually edify yourselves, 
thus exercises such an overmastering influence upon his mind, that he is 
convinced by all, i.e. brought to a consciousness of the guilt of his sins. 
Comp. John xvi. 9. All produce this impression upon him, because each 
speaks prophetically, and the fundamental character of prophetic address— 
the penetrating into the depths of the human heart for wholesome admoni- 
tion ( comp. ver. 3)—is alike in all. — After the first aggregate impression of 
the ZAeyguc, he experiences and is conscious of the moral sifting and unveil- 


1} amoro is omitted in B, because it has crept in from ver. 24. But in that case 
might appear unsuitable. Buttmann in the amvato. WOuld have been prefixed (so only 
Stud. u, Krit. 1860, p. 870, believes that it | Ambrosiaster), 


CHAP. XIV., 26. 329 


ing of his innermost life. <A striking climax. — dvaxpivera:] for in the judg- 
ment of the human heart, which the prophets deliver, he hears a judgment 
upon his own heart and his own moral condition. —ra xpura tig Kapdiac 
«.7.4.| .e. the moving springs, inclinations, plans, etc., of his whole inner 
active life, which had been hitherto known to no other, are brought to 
light, inasmuch as the prophets depict the hidden thoughts and strivings 
of the human spirit, with apocalyptically enlightened depth of insight, so 
truly and strikingly, that the listener sees the secrets of his own heart laid 
bare before all who are there present. — cai ow] result : and in such form, 
namely, convinced, judged, and made manifest, as has been just said. — 
anayyéAAwy| announcing, i.e. declaring aloud, and not first at home (Beza), — 
évtwc| really, opposite of what is merely pretended or semblance. Comp. 
Mark xi. 82; Gal. iti. 21, al. — év tyiv] in animis vestris, in which He works 
this enlightenment and spiritual power. ‘‘ Argumentum pro veritate relig- 
ionis ex operationibus divinis efficacissimum” (Bengel). Through this pres- 
ence of God in the individuals (by means of the Spirit) He dwells in the 
church, which thereby is His temple (iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 20 f.). 

Ver. 26 ff. The theoretical part regarding the charismata is closed (vv. 1- 
25). There is now added as its sequel the regulative part regarding the 
proper application of the charismata, and (1) of the charismata in general 
(ver. 26) ; then, in particular, (2) of the glossolalia (vv. 27, 28); and (8) 
of the gift of prophecy (vv. 29-33). Upon this follows, as an appendix, (4) 
the prohibition of public speaking on the part of women (vv. 34-36). And 
by way of conclusion, (5) the assertion of apostolic authority for the whole 
teaching now given (vv. 37, 38); and (6) a summary repetition of the chief 
points (vv. 39, 40). 

Ver. 26. Ti ody éorw ;] as in ver. 15. — The apodosis begins with éxasroc, 
and zdvra on to yivéoOw is a sentence by itself. As often as you come together, 
every one (every one gifted with charismatic speech among you) has a psalm 
ready, z.¢. he feels himself qualified and constrained to sing aloud such a 
spirit-given song. It is not, however, the glossolalia ware which is meant, 
since afterwards y2Aéccav éyer is specially mentioned in addition, but the in- 
telligible singing of praise, which takes place with the vov¢c (comp. ver. 15). 
Comp. generally on Eph. v. 19. Grotius compares the improvised hymns 
of Deborah, Simeon, etc. — éyer is neither interrogative (Grotius) nor: he 
may have (David Schulz), nor are we to supply in thought with Locke, ‘‘ut 
moram ferre non possit ;” but it simply expresses the state of the case : in 
promptu habet. Bengel rightly judges of the repetition of the éye: : ‘‘ elegan- 
ter exprimit divisam donorum copiam.” — didayjv] a doctrinal address. See 
on xii. 10, 28. —yAdocar| a tongue, i.e. a spirit-tongue, which secks utterance. 
The matter is so conceived and described as that not every one has the use 
of a tongue in the sense of the glossolalia, but only the man gifted with this 
charisma, in whom there is present for this purpose a tongue as the organ 
of the Spirit. — aroxddvyuv] a revelation, which he wishes to utter by a pro- 
phetic address, comp. ver. 29 f. —épunveiav|] an interpretation, which he 
wishes to give of an address ina tongue already delivered. — The words 
apaAuov to épu. Eyer are the separate divisions of the éxaoroc, as in 1.12. Then 


330 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


follows the general rule for all these charismata : all must be done for the 
Surtherance of Christian perfection (of the church) !_ Observe how, accord- 
ing to this passage, public teaching was not restricted to one definite 
office (kK?) See Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 850. 

Ver. 27. After this general rule come now particular precepts : suppose 
that one wishes to speak with a tongue; comp. yAéocay éyet, ver. 26. There is 
no other ceive to correspond to this eire (stve, Vulgate) ; but the plan of sen- 
tence first thought of and begun is so disturbed by the apodosis and ver. 
28, that it is quite abandoned, and ver. 29, instead of commencing with a 
new eite, is not even continued in hypothetic form at all. See Maetzner, ad 
Antiph. p. 194. Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 538. According to Hofmann 
(who writes ei re separately), ré 1s annexive, namely, to xdvra x. otk. y. In 
that case ei te would be : im like manner if (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 106 f.), 
which, however, would be logically suitable only on the supposition that 
yaéooa did not already occur also in ver. 26. — xara dbo k.t.A.| 8¢. Aareitwoav 
(comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11), and this is to be taken declaratively (as in xi. 16) : 
let him know that they should speak by two, or at most by three ; in each assem- 
bly not more than two, or at most three, speakers with tongues should come 
forward. As to the supplying of AaAeir., see Kiihner, II. p. 603 ; Fritzsche 
ad Rom. TIL. p. 65. —+70 rdeiorov] adverbially. See Matthiae, p. 1000. — 
Kai ava pépoc, and that according to order, one after the other, not several 
together. See Valck. ad Phoen. 481 ; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 380. Doubt- 
less—and this seems to have given occasion for this addition—the case had 
often occurred in Corinth, that those who spoke with tongues had so little 
controlled their impulse that several came to speak together. — Kai eic¢ dvepy. | 
and let one (not several) give the interpretation, of that, namely, which the said 
two or three speakers with tongues have spoken in succession. Grotius puts 
it rightly : ‘‘ unus aliquis, qui id donum habet ;” and it is plain from vv. 5, 
13 (in opposition to Ewald) that the speaker with tongues himself might 
also be the interpreter. Paul will not allow several interpreters to speak, 
because that would have been unnecessary, and would only have shortened 
the time for the more useful prophetic and other addresses. 

Ver. 28. Should it be case, however, that there is no interpreter present, let 
him be silent in the assembly. This comprises the double possibility that the 
speaker with tongues cannot himself interpret, and also that no other, who 
possesses the donum interpretandi, is present. Regarding eiva: as equiva- 
lent to zapeivat, comp. on Mark viii. 1 ; Luke ii. 36. David Schulz un- 
derstands 7) as the simple copula: ‘‘if, however, he does not know how to 
make himself intelligible.” But the interpretation might in fact be given 
also by another, who had the charisma of the épuyveta yAwoodv, xl. 10, 30. 
— ory. év éxx2.] Paul takes for granted here—and how easily one can under- 
stand it, considering the intimate union subsisting among the Christians of 
those days !—that the members of the community mutually know each other 
as regards their special endowments. — éavré dé Aad. x. Tt. 0.] in contrast to 
addresses given éy rf éxxAnoia, and hence a characteristic designation of the 
private devotion carried on by means of glossolalic prayer, where his glosso- 
lalia avails for himself and God (ver. 2), not for others also as listeners, 


CHAP. XIV., 29-381. dol 


Comp. Epict. Diss. iv. 8. 17, and the similar passages in Wetstein. Others 
take it to mean : quietly in his thoughts (Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom, 
also Chr. F. Fritzsche), so that it remains on the footing of an inward in- 
tercourse between him and his God (Hofmann) ; which, however, is not in 
keeping with the essential mark of the Aateiv, this being uttered aloud, which 
belonged to the matter in hand.’ Observe, further, how, even in this high- 
est degree of inspired impulse to speak, a man could control his own will. 
Comp. ver. 82. 

Ver. 29. Aé] marks the transition to the rule regarding the prophets. — 
The ava pépoc (ver. 27) is emphasized in a special way, ver. 30; yet Paul 
does not-add a 7d wAciorov here, thereby limiting the gift of prophecy less 
sharply, and tacitly also conceding a plurality of speakers, when the circum- 
stances might perhaps involve an exception from the rule. Still we are not 


- (with Hofmann) to read dio } tpeic as Meaning ‘‘ rather three than two.” — 


Kal of dAdo diaxp.| and the other prophets, who do not take part in speaking, 
are to judge: whether, namely, what has been said proceeds really from the 
Spirit or not. Wesee from this that the charisma of judging the spirits 
was joined with that of prophecy, so that whoever could himself speak pro- 
phetically was qualified also for the d:dxprowe ; for of dAA0e (comp. dAAw, ver. 
30) cannot be taken (with Hofmann) universally, without restriction to the 
category of prophets, seeing that in fact the ddxpioue was no universal 
yapioua. The article is retrospective, so that it is defined by rpodfjra:. At 
the same time, however, it must not be overlooked that. even such persons 
as were not themselves prophets might still be endowed with the dcdkpzoce 
(xii. 10), although not all were so. 

Ver. 30. But two prophets were never to speak together. The order 
ought, on the contrary, to be this, that if a revelation shall have been im- 
parted to another prophet (444) while he sits listening, the first shall be silent 


(not simply soon cease, as Neander, Maier, and others would take it ; comp., 


too, Hofmann) and let the second speak. Paul thus does not enjoin that 
the second shall wait until the first is finished, to which meaning Grotius, 
Storr, and Flatt twist the words (comp. vv. 28, 34) ; on the contrary, he at- 
taches more importance to the fresh undelayed outburst of prophetic in- 
spiration, than to the further continuance of the address after the first out- 
burst. — xa6nu.| for the prophets spoke standing, Luke iv. 17. See Grotius 
in loc. 

Ver. 31 f. Establishment of this precept by setting forth the. possibility 
of its observance. The principal emphasis is laid upon divacbe, which is for 
this reason placed first (not upon wdyrec, as Riickert holds), for in it lies the 
pith of the proof. Neat to it rayrec has the emphasis. The sense is: ‘‘ For 
in my 6 rparoc oty. 1 am enjoining nothing which is impossible for you ; on the 
contrary, it stands in your power that, one after another, you may all come to 
give a prophetic address.” etc. —xa? éva} always. one at a time, singulatim. 
Acts xxi, 19; see Ast, Zev. Plat. I. p. 639 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 240. The 


1 Besides, it was self-evident that, where be in the first instance remitted to quiet 
silence was enjoined, aman did not need to inward fellowship with God. 


332 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
subject addressed in Jivacbe is the prophets in the church, not the members of 
the church generally (Hofmann), seeing that prophecy was a special ydpiopa * 
which did not belong to all (see xii. 29 ; Acts xiii. 1; Eph. iv. 11). The 
inspiration of the prophets does not compel them to speak on without a 
break, so as not to allow another to take speech at all or to speak alone, but 
it is in their power to cease when another begins, so that by degrees all 
may come to speak—not, of course, in the same assembly (ver. 29), but in 
successive meetings. — And this circumstance, that xa” éva rdvrec mpognred- 
over, has for its design (iva), that all the members of the church (which in- 
cludes also’ other prophets along with the rest) may learn, etc., that none 
may remain without instruction and encouragement. For modes of pro- 
phetic inspiration, very different from each other in substance and form, 
will then find expression, whereby satisfaction will be given to the most 
different wants. — pav6dvwor] what God has revealed to those speaking pro- 
phetically. — rapaxa.| be encouraged, aroused. Comp. rapdkdAnow, ver. 3. 
Paul describes here the effects of prophecy from the theoretical (uav6.) and 
practical (rapaxad.) sides. 'The latter he had already stated more specially in 
ver. 3. 

Ver. 32. The second part of the establishment of the precept (yap, ver. 31). 
And prophets’ spirits are obedient to prophets. The indicative presents the 
normal relationship as dt is, not as it ought to be (Olshausen and others). 
— rvebuata xpoo.| cannot be workings of the Divine Spirit in the prophets 
(Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and others, including Flatt, comp. de 
Wette), nor does it mean the spirits which the prophets have received, so that 
the one rvetjua appears as if divided among them (Riickert), or created an- 
gelic spirits in the service of the Holy Spirit (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. p. 307), 
or even actually several Holy Spirits (Hilgenfeld ; see, however, on ver. 
12) ; but (comp. the genitival relation, ver. 14) it is the prophets’ own spirits, 
Jilled, however, by the Holy Spirit. Persons prophetically inspired are, as 
such, raised to a higher spiritual potency, and have prophets’ spirits. Comp. 
Rey. xxii. 6, and Diisterdieck in loc. But their free-will is not thereby 
taken away, nor does the prophetic address become something involuntary, 
like a Bacchantic enthusiasm ; no, prophets’ spirits stand in obedience to 
prophets ; he who is a prophet has the power of will over his spirit, which 
makes the 6 proc ovydtw in ver. 80? possible ; éxt toic mpodhraig éotl Td avyay 
i) Aarzeiv, Theophylact. Comp. Hofmann in loc., and Sehriftbew. I. p. 812. 
Others, again (Theophylact gives both interpretations alongside of each 
other), refer zpopfra:c to other prophets : 
yapiopate Tov érépov Tod Kuvybévtog cic Td Tpodytebecv, Theophylact. . So Theo- 
doret, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Hey- 





TO év coe yapioua. . . bmoTdooETAL TH 


1Tt is not correct to say, ‘‘on the con- 
trary, whoever receives a revelation becomes a 
prophet”? (Hofmann) ; for the prophetic en- 
dowment is havditual, belonging to one and 
not to another. Whoever has it receives 
revelations to be communicated for the 
edification of others; he is the vessel 
divinely prepared for this reception and 


communication. 

2Comp. Luther in the gloss: ‘ They 
should and may well give place, since the 
gifts of the Spirit stand under their control, 
not to use them in opposition to unity, so 
that they may not say that the Spirit drives 
and compels them,”’ 


CHAP. ' XIV., 33, 34: 00 


denreich, Bleek, Riickert, and Ritschl, althath. K. p. 473. But if Paul 
had conceived of the prophet’s becoming silent as conditioned by the will 
of another, and so objectively,—which the expression, taken simply in itself, 
might imply,—then plainly his admonition 6 rpéro¢ ccyétw would be entirely 
superfluous. He must, on the contrary, have conceived of it as conditioned 
subjectively by the will of the subjects themselves who spoke ; and with this 
our view alone accords, which is found in as early expositors as Origen, 
Jerome, and Oecumenius. — The absence of the article in the case of all the 
three words depends upon the fact that the relation is conceived not in con- 
ereto, but generically. — Observe, further, the strict, measured form of ex- 
pression, tvebuara mpogdytov xpogyraic, which is designed not simply for rhe- 
torical emphasis, but for definiteness and clearness of meaning, separating 
the prophets’ spirits from the subjects who have them. Airoi¢ would not 
have marked this so strongly. 

Ver. 33. Establishment of ver. 82 on religious grounds. ‘‘ For how 
could God have appointed it otherwise, secing that by Him is produced not 
confusion (as would be the case if every prophet had to speak on involun- 
tarily), but peace /” Comp. Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9; 1 Thess. v. 
23. The antithesis is correct, for the dxaracracia would bring with it a 
jealous and unyielding disposition. 

Ver. 34. Appendix to the regulative section regarding the gifts of the 
Spirit (vv. 26-33) : directed against the public speaking of women. Corin- 
thian women, with their freer mood inclined towards emancipation (comp. 
xi. 2 ff.), must have presumed on this. — &¢ év rao. rT. éxxa. Tr. ay.] is referred 
by the Fathers and most of the older expositors, Rtickert, Osiander, Nean- 
der, Maier, to what precedes (comp. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16). But since the 
preceding ob yap. . . eipf#vyc¢ is quite general, and hence contains no special 
point of reference for é¢ (for which reason this é¢ has been got rid of in 
various ways, and even d:ddécxw has been added in some codd. and versions) ; 
since, on the other hand, the passage which follows offers this point of ref- 
erence in the fact of its being a command for the Corinthians ; and since 
ver. 36 manifestly glances back at the argument implied in éy z. +. éxxa. 7. 
dy.,—therefore it is preferable to connect the clause with what follows, as is 
done by Cajetanus and most modern expositors : As in all church assemblies 
of the saints, your women ought to be silent in the church assemblies. (1") 

To place a comma, with Lachmann, before roy dyivy, puts an incongruous 
emphasis upon rdv dy. — Regarding the matter itself (1 Tim. ii. 11), comp. 
the parallels from Greek, Roman, and Rabbinical writers in Wetstein in loc. ; 
Vitringa, Synag. p. 724; Schoettgen, Horae, p. 658. — ov yap énitpéretac] 
Sor it is (permanently) not allowed. To take éirpérecfac as mandari (Reiche) 
would be linguistically correct in itself, but against the usage of the whole 
N.T. (comp. xvi. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 12). — 447 trordoceobar] namely, is imeuwm- 
bent upon them, in accordance with a current Greek brevity of expression. 
Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; see Kiihner, IJ. p. 604 f. ; Dissen, ad Demosth. de Cor. 
p. 222 f. The trordocecba excludes, in Paul’s view, the speaking in the 
assemblies, inasmuch as the latter appears to him as an act of uncomplying 
independence. — 6 vduoc] Gen. iii. 16. 


334 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 85. Even questions for their instruction should not be brought for- 
ward by the women in the assemblies. — éy oixw] has the emphasis. At 
home, not in the assembly, they are to obtain for themselves by inquiry the 
desired instruction, and that from those to whom they, as women, are 
naturally referred, from their own husbands. 

Ver. 36. 7 joins on to what is immediately before prescribed, not to the 
previous directions in general (de Wette, Osiander, e¢ al.). ‘‘It is dis- 
graceful for a woman to speak in public, unless, perhaps, you were the first 
or the only Christian church, in which cases then, doubtless, your custom 
would show that disgracefulness to be a mistake, and would authorize as 
becoming the speaking of women by way of an example for other churches !” 
un Tolvuv Ttoi¢ olKelowg apKelobe, GAAG Taig TOV éExKAnorOv vouobeciate AKoAovOeiTe, 
Theodoret ; but the point of the expression, as against the Corinthian 
haughtiness, is very palpable. —aicypév] éredn karArAworilecbac évrevev 
évduclov éx Tov pbéyyeobat Snuocia, Tad el¢ TO évavtiov mepstyet Tov Adyov, Chrys- 
ostom. Comp. xi. 5 f. Paul is decided against all undue exaltation and 
assumption on the part of women in religious things, and it has been the 
occasion of much evil in the church. 

Ver. 37. He now, after the digression regarding the women, adds the 
authority of Christ to the section upon the charismata, which has been already 
previously brought to a conclusion, but to which he looks back once more. 
— doxei] If any one represents himself (iil. 18, vill. 2, x. 12) to be a prophet, 
or spiritually gifted in any way, then let him also prove himself to be such 
by his recognizing, etc. Not to acknowledge this would show him to be 
not a prophet or not inspired. — rvevuatixdce] quite general : ‘‘ dotibus Sp. St. 
instructus ;” not, as Billroth, David Schulz, Baur, and Wieseler would have 
it, equivalent to y2. Aaio¥ (comp. on xii. 1, xiv. 1). *H is: or generally. 
Hofmann is wrong in saying that the 7 is not suited for thus linking on a 
general statement. Why not? Comp. iv. 3; Luke xii. 11; Matt. xvi. 14. 
There is all the less reason for assuming, with Hofmann, that Paul uses the 
expression in the vaguer sense of one going even beyond the prophet, because 
he had found it so used in the letter from Corinth. — é ypd¢o iu.| refers to 
the whole section regarding the rvevuatixoic. To refer it, as Billroth and Ols: 
hausen do, to the command that the women should keep silence, does not 
harmonize with the introduction ei ti¢ . . . xvevuatixédc, and involves the 
awkwardness of only this intervening matter being thus confirmed with 
such solemnity, and the principal and far more important section not at all. 
—xvpiov éoriv (see the critical remarks): proceed from the Lord. In his com- 
munion of spirit with Christ, Paul was conscious that what he had been 
writing, from chap. x. onwards, regarding spiritual gifts and the right use 
of them, was the result not of his own meditation and desire, but of the 
working of Christ upon him—that he wrote as an interpres Christi. There 
is thus no reason for making xvpiov refer to God (Grotius, Billroth, Olshau- 
sen), seeing that Christ had in fact given no rules regarding the charismata., 
Paul is affixing here the seal of apostolic authority, and upon that seal we 
must read Christ. 

Ver. 88, ’Ayvoci] namely, & ypddw ipiv, bre x.7.A., ver. 87. His not being 


NOTES. 33D 


willing to know, or the attitude of wrongly knowing (Hofmann), is not con- 
veyed in the word, but is presupposed. —dayvoeitw| permissive, denotes the 
- renunciation of all endeavours to instruct such an one who lets himself be 
puffed up. Itis the opposite of the éryvdoxew, ver. 37. Estius puts it 
well: ‘‘ Sibi suaeque ignorantiae relinquendos esse censeo.” Comp. xi. 16. 
(a) 

Vv. 39, 40. Gathering up (Gore, ‘‘itaque, summa,” Bengel) the main 
points of the whole discussion, and that (1) of its theoretical (ver. 39), and 
(2) of its regulative part (ver. 40). — Paul has aptly indicated the value of 
the glossolalia relatively to the prophetical gift by CyAovre (comp. ver. 12, 
xl. 31) and py Kwdvere, without there being any ground, however, for in- 
ferring from this an attitude of hostility on the side of the Pauline party 
towards those who spoke with tongues (Baur, Ribiger, comp. at an earlier 
date Storr). — evoynudvac| in a seemly way (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12), 
denoting ecclesiastical decorwm. — kata rag] in accordance with order (see 
Wetstein), so that it is done at the right time, and in the right measure and 
limits. (N?) Comp. Clem. ad Cor. I. 40, also what Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 
8. 5, says of the Essenes : otre xpavyf rote Tov oixov, ote OdpvBog podbver, Tac 
6&8 Aadiag év TaEer Tapaywpovowy AAAHhoLc. 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(c*) The tongues were edifying. Ver. 5. 


It shows also that the contents of the discourses delivered in an unknown 
tongue were edifying. They did not consist of ecstatic but unintelligible and 
unintelligent outpourings of the heart before God, for if that were the case in- 
terpretation would be manifestly impossible. 


(a°) How shallhe. .. say the Amen? Ver. 16. 


The practice of giving the audible response was borrowed from the synagogue, * 
in which aJl the worshippers were expected to utter the Amen with such hearti- 
ness as to show that they entered fully into what was said. Principal Brown 
says justly that those churches have not done well who have dropped out the 
audible response, the uttered Amen, of the congregation, by which alone they 
have it in their power to express their cordial sympathy with what is uttered in 
prayer by the officiating minister. 


(1°) The unknown is unedifying. Ver. 17. 


Many commentators take occasion from this passage to reprove the custom 
in the Roman Church of using the Latin language in her public services, For 
the very thing here prohibited is praying in public in a language which the 
people do not understand. ‘It is indeed said that words may touch the feel- 
ings which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say 
Amen to those words any more than we can to a flute. Such blind emotional 
worship, if such it can be called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent 
service demanded by the apostle’? (Hodge). 


336 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(3°) ** In the law it is written.’ Ver. 21. 


It may well be doubted whether it is wise to insist upon interpreting this 
quotation typically. It is better, with Stanley, Hodge, and Beet, to take it as a 
simple reference to an event in Jewish history from which a useful lesson could 
bedrawn. As the Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking in their own 
language, God threatened to bring upon them a people whose language they 
could not understand. This was a judgment, a mark of displeasure, designed 
as a punishment and not for their conversion. Hence the Apostle wishes the 
Corinthians to learn that it was no token of God’s favour to have teachers whose 
language they could not understand. ‘Their childish zeal for tongues was sim- 
ply turning a blessing into a curse. 


(K°) Public teaching not restricted to one definite office. Ver. 26. 


This is true, yet the circumstances are to be considered. While the extraor- 
dinary gifts of tongues, prophecy, and the like continued, any member present 
who experienced the working of the Spirit in these manifestations was author- 
ized to exercise his gift. And all that Paul does is to lay down the general rule 
that everything should be done unto edifying. But manifestly, after the gifts 
ceased, no one would have the right, simply under the impulse of his own mind, 
to rise in the church and take part in its services. 


(L”) ‘* As in all the churches,”’ etc. Ver. 34. 


Alford, Principal Brown, Westcott and Hort insist upon the old patristic 
usage of connecting this clause with what precedes, but not wisely. So under- 
stood, the words have no pertinent sense, for the Apostle would hardly undertake 
to uphold a conceded and undeniable truth by an appeal to the authority or 
experience of the church. Onthe other hand, to make such an appeal in favour 
of what he says in the 34th verse is both pertinent in itself and consonant with 
the Apostle’s own practice, as stated in xi, 16, ‘* we have no such custom,”’ ete. 
The Revision of 1881 follows the old practice. 


(m*) ‘* Let him be ignorant.” Ver. 38. 


The Revised Version givesin the margin, ‘‘ he is not known,”’ according to a 
reading found in several uncials and read apparently by Origen. But as the 
documentary evidence is fairly divided, and the indicative reading would be 
very hard to expound, it is better to adhere to the received text, the sense of 
which is a contemptuous expression of indifference to the opinion of opposers 
or an affirmation that to argue further with such persons would be a waste of 
time. 


(n*) ** Decently and in order.’’ Ver. 40. 


Decently, i.e. becomingly, in such a way as not to offend against propriety. 
Dean Stanley says that this direction, and that given in ver. 26, ‘* Let all things 
be done unto edifying,” are the only rubrics of the primitive church. And 
they are of universal and perpetual authority. 


CHAP. XV. 337 


CHAPTER XV. 


Ver. 10. 7 ody éuoi] Lachm. has merely ody éuoi, following B D* FG &* 
Vulg. It. Or. Ambrosiast. Aug. Rightly ; the article was inserted, doubtless, 
in some cases in a mere mechanical way after 7 cic éué, but in others purposely, 
in order to have a thoroughly complete contrast to ov« éyo, at the suggestion of 
dogmatic interest, which also produced the weakly attested reading 7 év éuoi. 
The 7 is wanting also before eic gué in D* FG, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. 
But here there was nothing in the context to occasion the insertion, and the 
article could be dispensed with, and was thus overlooked. — Ver. 14. kev? Kai] 
Elz., Scholz, Tisch. read kev) dé cai, against greatly preponderating testimony. 
— Ver. 19. év Xpior@] stands before 7Arikérec in AB D* EF G 8, min. Vulg. 
It. Goth. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Riick. Tisch. and rightly, for this 
position is not easier than that of the Recepla, and hence the great preponder- 
ance of the evidence is all the more decisive. — Ver. 20. After xexocu. Elz. has 
éyévero, against decisive evidence; a supplementary addition. — Ver. 21. 6 
Gavatoc] The article is wanting in A B D* K 8, Or. Dial. c. Marc. Cyr. Dam. al. 
Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Riick. From Rom. v. 12. — Ver. 24. Instead of 
the Recepta rapadw, which Reiche defends, B F G have zapadidoi, and AD E 8, 
min, Fathers zapadidw ; the former preferred by Lachm. and Tisch., the latter 
by Riick. Ilapadid@, or the rapadidoi, which is likewise to be taken as a sub- 
junctive form (there is no means of deciding between the two), is correct (see 
the exegetical remarks) ; étav xatapyjoyn, however, made the aorist come very 
naturally to the transcribers, who did not apprehend the different relations 
of the two clauses. — Ver. 25. — dv before 67 (in Elz. and Scholz) is omitted in 
preponderant authorities, and has come in from the LXX. Ps. cx. 1. — Ver. 29. 
aitav] Elz. reads rév vexpov, against decisive evidence ; a correct gloss. —- Ver. 
31. tuetépav] A, min. Or. have juetépav, So Riick. But the former not being 
understood, the latter appeared to be required by jv éyw. — After kavynouw 
Lachm. and Tisch. have ddeAdoi, on the testimony of A B K &, min. vss. and 
Latin Fathers. Rightly ; it isin keeping with the impassioned address, but 
was easily overlooked by the transcribers, since no new section of the address 
begins here (comp. on xi. 2). — Ver, 36. d¢pov] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read 
agpov, following A BDEGS8, min. The former is a correction. — Ver. 39. 
Before dv§pdrwv Elz. has capg again, which is deleted by Griesb. and the later 
editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. — iyOvwv, dAAn 0? trnvev] A pre- 
ponderance of authority—and this alone can decide here—has it in the inverse 
order mTyvov.. . ty¥Gvwv. So Riick., also Lachm. and Tisch., who, however, 
read odp§ again before rryv., which has, it is true, important attestation, but 
is a mechanical addition. Paul repeated odpé in connection with the first kind 
of animals only, and so arranged his enumeration. — Ver. 44. éors o@ua K,T.A.] 
ei éorwv o@pua w., gow Kal Trvevuat. occurs in ABC D* FG 8, min., and several 
vss, and Fathers. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. 
And how easily the form of the preceding clauses'might. occasion the passing 


338 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

over of the ¢i, which, besides, was so exposed to omission from the way in 
which the following word begins (E:Eorv). — Ver. 47. After 6 deitepocg avOp. 
Elz. and Scholz have 6 xvpioc, in opposition to BC D* EF G &* 17, 67** and 
several vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch. A gloss. See Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 294 ff. — Ver. 49. dopécouer] 
Lachm. reads gopéowuev, following AC DEF GKL &, and many min, Copt. 
Slav. Vulg. It. Goth. Theodot. Or. (ed. de la Rue) Method. Bas. Chrys. Cyr. 
Macar, Epiph. Damase. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Hilar. Zeno, Ambrosiast. Jer. Pel. al. 
A great preponderance of testimony! Nevertheless, the very ancient Recepta 
still retains the important attestation of Band many min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. 
Arm. Or. ed. Theodoret ; Oec. and Theophyl. give and explain both readings. 
The Recepta is to be retained, because it is necessary in the connection (see the 
exegetical remarks); the subjunctive is unsuitable, but was easily brought into 
the text from the fact that capf x. aiua in ver. 50 was taken in the ethical sense 
(see especially Chrys.) ; asin the physical sense, indeed, it would have stood 
in opposition to the doctrine of the ‘‘resurrectio carnis.” opécouev was first 
of all interpreted as hortative (which interpretation Theodoret felt it necessary 
expressly to reject), and then the hortative form of the verb was inserted in the 
teat. — Ver. 50. KAnpovouei] Lachm. reads KAnpovoujoe:, following C* D* F G, 
Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Occasioned by the similarity sf sound of the 
preceding «Anpovoujoar, — Yer, 51.1 mavtec wév. . . aAday.|] Lachm. reads rdvrec 
[uév] xouund,, ov wavtec 0é GAAay. Altogether there are many variations, but all of 
them arose from the offence which was taken, in connection with the reading of 
the text, at the idea of Paul and his readers having all of them undergone death. 
The Recepta occurs in B (which merely omits vév) D** E K L almost all min. 
codd. in Jer. al. Goth. Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers, an attesta- 
tion which, considering how the readings otherwise vary, is a very strong one, 
although among the uncials C G 8 support Lachm. — Ver. 54. Both the omis- 
sion of the first part of the protasis (in &%* also) and the transposition of the 
two clauses are insufficiently attested, and are to be explained from the homo- 
eoteleuta. — Ver. 55. vixoc is put first and «évrpov last by B CJ 8&, 17, 64, 71, 
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Riick. 
But they are evidently transposed, after the LXX. in Hos. xiii. 14. — Instead of 
één, BC DEF GJ &* 39, 67** and several vss. and Fathers have Odavare again. 
So Lachm. Riick. Tisch.; and rightly, for gd7 has come in from the LXX. 


ConTENTS.’—Disquisition on the resurrection of the dead, occasioned by 
the deniers of it in Corinth (ver. 12). That these deniers had been formerly 
Sadducees, and had brought forward again their Sadducean views in connec- 
tion with Christianity (so recently Flatt, following Heumann, Michaelis, 
Storr, Knapp ; and comp. earlier, Calvin, and Lightfoot, Chron. p. 110) is 
not to beassumed, partly because, in general, Sadduceeism and Christianity 


1 See on the passage Reiche, Comment. 
crit. I. p. 297 ff., who defends the Recepta 
with thoroughness and triumphant success. 
Tischendorf also has retained it, deleting 
only the wév (which is certainly open to the 
suspicion of being an addition). 

2 See regarding the whole chapter, W. A. 
van Hengel. Commentar. perpet. én 1 Cor. xy. 


cum epistola ad Winerum, Sylvae ducis, 
1851; Krauss, theol. Kommentar z. 1 Kor. 
XV., Frauenfeld 1864 (who stands, however, 
in express antagonism to grammatico-his- 
torical exegesis). Comp. also Klépper, zur 
paulin. Lehre v. a. Aufersteh. in the Jahrb. f. 
D. Theol. 1862, p. 1 ff. 


CHAP. XV. 339 


are too much antagonistic in their nature to mingle with each other, and 
also because in that case Paul could not have based his refutation upon the 
resurrection of Christ (Acts iv. 2). Nor is it more probable that the oppo- 
nents had been Hpicureans, for it is plain from vv. 32-84 that the Epicurean 
turn which they had taken was not the grownd, but the consequence of their 
denial of the resurrection ; as, indeed, Epicureanism in general is such an 
antichristian element that, supposing it had been the source of the denial, 
Paul would certainly have entered upon a discussion of its principles, in so 
far as they were opposed to faith in the resurrection. It is certain at the 
same time that the deniers were not Jewish Christians ; for with them the 
belief in the Messiah stood in the most necessary connection with the belief 
in the resurrection ; comp. Acts xxiii. 6. On the contrary, it must have 
been Gentile Christians (Baur, de Wctte, van Hengel, Ewald, and many 
others) to whom the resurrection seemed impossible, and who therefore (vv. 
35, 36) denied it. And it is probable, at all events, that they were persons 
of philosophical training (Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including 
Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 35 f., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander ; Riickert is 
undecided), because they must in asserting their thesis, 67 avdoraoie vexpov 
ov« éotiv, have caused some sensation, which, in such a place as Corinth, is 
hardly conceivable on the part of men strangers to any degree of philosophi- 
cal education and practice in dialectics ; and because the anti-materialistic 
explanation of the matter, which Paul gives to combat the doubts of his 
opponents (ver. 35 ff.), makes it probable that the antagonism on the part 
of the sceptics was a spiritualistic one, 7.e. an antagonism resting on the 
philosophic ground that the restoration of the matter of the body was impos- 
sible. That the apostle does not contend at the same time against the world’s 
wisdom in general (a doubt expressed by de Wette) is the less strange, as he 
has to do now with a special subject, and had also already delivered a general 
polemic of this nature, chap. ii. 3. The small number, however, of men philo- 
sophically trained (i. 26) permits of no further inference than that the sceptics 
in question also were not numerous (rivéc, ver. 12). In Athens, too (Acts xvii. 
32), the resurrection of the dead was the stone of stumbling for philosophic 
culture ; and how often has it been so since, and even to the present day ! 
—But to which of the four parties in Corinth did these deniers belong? That 
they were not of the Petrine or Judaistic party is self-evident. Neither 
were they of the Christ-party (as Neander, Olshausen, Jiiger, and Goldhorn 
hold them to have been), for Christ had so often and so distinctly taught 
the doctrine of resurrection of the body, that the denial of it would have 
been at the most palpable variance with the éy® Xpcorod eiuz. Nor yet were 
they of the party of Paul, seeing that the doctrine of the resurrection was a 
most essential article of the Pauline Gospel. There remains, therefore, only 
the party of Apollos (so also Riibiger and Maier), some of whom having been 
converted, doubtless, only after the apostle had ceased to labour in Corinth, 
or having come thither subsequently from other quarters, may have found 
what he had taught in Corinth regarding the resurrection of the dead not 
compatible with their philosophical standpoint, and hence—being the more 
incited to it, perhaps, through party variance—altogether denied that there 


340 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

was a resurrection of the dead.?’ Only we must not take this to mean that 
the adherents of Apollos as sueh—their party as such—had denied the resur- 
rection, and that accordingly this denial formed part of their party princi- 
ples,? but only that the ‘‘ some” (ver. 12) were preponderantly from the 
number of those who had attached themselves to Apollos and to the party 
named after him. Of the idea that the denial was a party matter, there is 
not only no trace whatever in the treatment of the subject, but it would also 
conflict with what is a necessary presupposition, namely, that the Christian- 
ity of the Apollos-party as such cannot have stood in such an essential and 
real contradiction in point of doctrine to that of Paul. We may add that the 
denial in question is not to be regarded asa theory, such as we find in 2 Tim. 
ii. 17 f., in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who understood the doc- 
trine allegorically, and maintained that the resurrection had already taken 
place. So, following Chrysostom, Grotius, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 362, Billroth, 
and Olshausen. The whole elaborate treatment of the subject does not show 
the slightest trace of this (see, on the contrary, especially ver. 12), although 
the main aim in that case would have been to prove that the resurrection 
was not a thing past, but something future. 

Vv. 1-11. Foundation for the folléwing argument. The latter enlarges 
upon the resurrection itself as far as ver. 34, and then upon the manner of it 
from ver. 35 to ver. 54, after which triumph and exhortation, vv. 55-58, 
form the conclusion. — The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus was not 
doubted even by his opponents, who must otherwise have given up the 
whole historic basis of Christianity, and must have been treated by the 
apostle as apostates (comp. Ziegler, theol, Abh. II. p. 93 ; Knapp, Ser. var. 
arg. p. 316 ; Ribiger, p. 154 f.); for only in this way was that fact capable of 
serving him for a firm starting-point for his argument with the view of reduc- 
ing the deniers ad absurdum. For this reason he sets forth the resurrection 
of Jesus in its certainty not polemically, but asa purely positive proposition. 

Vv. 1, 2. Aé] forming the transition to a new subject. There is no trace, 
however, of a question on the part of the Corinthians, to which Paul is giving 
the answer. — yvapifw| not, as is commonly held, equivalent to trouprvicKke 
(Oecumenius), nor yet, as Riickert weakens the force of the word : J call your 
attention to; but: I make known to you (xii. 3; 2 Cor. vill. 1; Gal. i. 2 ; 
Eph. i. 9; Col. iv. 7, al.). It is, no doubt, in substance a reminding them 


1 That they denied also the continued life 
of the spirit after death, which Calvin ex- 
pressly leaves undecided, cannot be main- 
tained, with Flatt and others, from pas- 
sages such as vy. 19, 29, 30-32, 58. On the 
contrary, these passages show merely this, 
that Paul attached no value to the con- 
tinued life of the souls in Hades, regarded 
in itself, and not ended by the resurrection. 
It was to him a vita non vitalis (comp. Kling 
in the Stwd. wu. Krit. 1839, p. 502), and the 
true everlasting ¢#7 was conditioned for 
him by the near Parousia and resurrection. 
This, at the same time, serves to correct 


what is asserted by Riickert and others, 
that in Paul’s mind, as in that of the Jews 
and Pharisees, the ideas of continued exist- 
ence and of resurrection were so blended 
into each other, that whoever denied the 
one seemed not to be capable of holding 
fast the other. According to Phil. i. 21, 23 
(comp. also 2 Cor. v. 8; Acts vii. 59), Paul 
has the conviction that if he should die as 
a martyr, he would pass, not into Hades, 
but to Christ in heaven, into a blessed inter- 
mediate state until the resurrection of the 
body. Seeon Phil. /.c. 
2 Comp. also Krauss, p. 12, 


CHAPS AX Vi cdgeee 341 


of something already known, but the expression is more emphatic, more 
arousing, putting to shame a part of the readers, and accordant with the 
fundamental importance of what is now to be discussed. — 16 ebayy. | is not 
simply the tidings of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Heydenreich, 
Riickert, and others), but the Christian tidings of salvation generally, because 
there is here no limiting definition, and as is further in particular clear from 
éyv mpOroe in ver. 8. —6 kai waped. x.t.A.| which you have also received. The 
thrice used «ai denotes with ever increasing emphasis the element to be 
added’ to the preceding one. — Regarding rape4., comp. John i. 11 ; Phil. 
iv. 9 ; and regarding éor#x., you stand, are firm, x. 12; Rom. v. 2; 2 Cor. 
i, 24; Eph. vi. 13; 1 Pet. v. 12; John viii. 44. — oéfecbe] pictures as 
present the future, quite certain Messianic salvation. Comp. on i. 18. — rive 
Aéyo . . . xatéxete] condition to odfecbe, in which rive Adyw ebyyy. iu. 1s put 
first for the sake of emphasis. Comp. vi. 4, xi. 14, xiv. 7, 9. Comp. also 
Plato, Pol. i. p. 8347 D: réAuc avdpav dyafév ei yévorto, Parm. p. 136 A; 
Baruch iii. 13, as indeed in general it is common in the classics (Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 238 A) and in the N. T. (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 334 
[E. T. 390]) for such words as ought to follow the conjunctions to precede 
them for the sake of emphasis. Hence: through which (by means of faith 
in its contents) you also obtain salvation, if you hold fast with what word I 
preached it to you. Not without design does he add this condition to the 
oétecbe ; for his readers were threatened with the danger of being led by 
the deniers of the resurrection to become untrue to the specific contents of 
his preaching. Others (including Bengel, Heydenreich, Billroth, van Hen- 
gel, Ewald) regard rive Adyw einyy. bu. a8 amore precise definition of 7d evayy. 
6 evyyy. tu. in accordance with the common form of attraction oida ce tic si 
(Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]). (0) Against this, however, it may be urged : 
(1) that the meaning: ‘‘ J make known to you... if you still hold it fast,” 
contains in the latter half (which is not to be transmuted, with van Hengel, 
into the sense: ‘‘ st curae nobis cordique est quod nune dico”) a condition 
which stands in no logical relation to the first half ; (2) that ei caréyere would 
be at variance with év @ kai éor#xate ; (8) that we should then have to as- 
sume for éxrd¢ ei py ein éxior. the inadmissible (see below) reference to 
katéyere. All these difficulties fall away with the above interpretation, ac- 
cording to which zapeAdBere expresses the historical act of reception ; éor/- 
cate, the present faithfulness ; odfec6e, the certain blessed future ; and «i 
karéyere, the abiding condition of the attainment of this end ; while éxroc 
€l py) ely Excor. in turn denotes the exaltation above every doubt in respect 
of the Messianic salvation really to be attained under this condition. — rir 
Aéyo| not as in Acts x. 29, with what ground (Wetstein, Kypke, Heyden- 
reich, and others, following Theodorus of Mopsuestia and Pelagius), which 
Osiander views as scriptural ground ; for rapédwxa yap bu. K.T.A., ver. 3, gives, 
in fact, not a ground, but the contents of the preaching. Hence also it does 
not refer to the ‘‘ manner and method of the proclamation” (Neander), but 


1 Calovius says rightly: ‘‘ Sequuntur haec severanti conservatio, perque illud fide sus- 
se invicem: evangelit annuntiatio, annun- ceptum et conservatum aelerna salvaiio.” 
tiati per fidem susceptio, suscepti in fide per- 


342 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


means : through what word, i.e. preaching what. As regards tiv, instead of 
a relative, see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251]. How different 
from the seductive discourses of the deniers had this Aéyoc of the apostle 
been ! According to Hofmann, rim Adym is meant to be interrogative, and 
that in the sense of ‘‘ with what presupposition,” while ei karéyere and et pu? 
elk éxcot. are the answer to it. Against this it may be urged: (1) that, 
since ei uy elk. éxiot. Would be a second condition, Paul would have marked 
the connection in an intelligible way by «ai (putting therefore either xa? ei 
or xai by itself, but not simply ei) ; (2) that Adyoc, in the sense of condition 
. or presupposition, is foreign to the N. T. and peculiar to Herodotus, who, 
however, always expresses sub conditione by éxi T6 Ady 5 see Schweighiiuser, 
Tex. Herod. Vl. p. 79 f. — ei xatéyere] This implies not merely the not hav- 
ing forgotten ; it is the believing firm retention, which does not let go the 
doctrine received—the continuance of the éorjxare. Comp. Luke viii. 15 ; 
1 Cor. xi. 2. And there is not so much an ‘‘ aculeus ad pungendum” (Calvin) 
in this as an admonition of the danger. — éxtd¢ et wp eixg éxior.| through 
which you are also saved, if you hold fast my word,—wnless that ye have 
become believing in vain, without any result. Only in this case, inconceiva- 
ble to the Christian consciousness (Beza aptly says: ‘‘argumentatur ab 
absurdo’’), would ye, in spite of that holding fast, lose the cwrypia. The 
words therefore imply the certainty of the cdfecAa to be expected under the 
condition of the caréyewv. On eixy, comp. Gal. ili. 4, iv. 11 ; and regarding 
éxtoc el, uh, except if, see on xiv. 5 3 on ério7., comp. il. 5; Rom. xiii. 11. 
To refer eixy to xatéyere (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Theodoret, Luther, 
Calvin, Estius, and others, including Billroth and de Wette) is impractica- 
ble for this reason, that «i xaréyere itself is a conditional clause, while to 
supply such an idea as xaréyere 08 tdvtwe (Theophylact) would be quite an 
arbitrary course. 

Ver. 3f. More precise explanation of the rim Adyw ebyyy. du. et Katéxere, 
by adducing those main points of that Adyoc, which are of decisive impor- 
tance for the further discussion which Paul now has in view. Hofmann’s 
interpretation of it as specifying the ground of the alleged condition and 
reservation in ver. 2, falls with his incorrect exposition of ei xaréyere x.T.A. 
— év mpétoc| neuter : in primis, chiefly, i.e. as doctrinal points of the first 
rank. Comp. Plato, Pol. p. 522 C: 6 cat ravti év mpetoie avdynn wavbdver. 
To take it, with Chrysostom,’ of the time (é apyjc), comp. Eccles. iv. 17, 
Proy. xx. 21, runs counter to the connection, according to which it is rather 
the fundamental significance of the following doctrines that is concerned. 
This in opposition also to Riickert’s view of it as masculine : to you among 
the jirst (comp. 1 Mace. vi. 6; Eccles. xlv. 20; Thue. vii. 19. 4: Lucian, 
Paras. 49 ; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 220), which is, moreover, historically 
untrue, unless with Riickert we arbitrarily supply ‘‘in Achaia.” —6 kar 
‘ rapéAaBov| This conveys the idea : which had been likewise communicated to 


1 Who is followed by van Hengel: ‘‘ Re- ostom, Paul adduces the time as witness 
censet partem eorum, a quibus proponendis Kai OTL €oxXaTHS Hv aicxvYns, TOTOUTOY xXpdvoV 
Corinthios docere incepit.’? So Hofmann meioOevTas vov meTatibecbar, 
also in substance. According to Chrys- 


CHAP. XV:;.5. 343 


me,—nothing therefore new or self-invented. From whom Paul had re- 
ceived the contents of vv. 3-5, he does not say ; but for the very reason 
that he does not add an a7 rov xupiov, as in xi. 23, or words to like effect, 
and on account of the correlation in which zapéAaBov stands to rapédwxa 
(comp. also 6 cai zapeAdBere, ver. 1), as well as on account of the reference 
extending to the simple historical statements in ver. 5 ff., we are not to 
supply: from Christ, through revelation (the common view since Chrysos- 
tom), but rather : through historical tradition, as it was living in the church 
(comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann). It is true, indeed, that he has that, 
which forms the inner relation of the aréfavev x.7.A. and belongs to the 
inner substance of the gospel, from revelation (Gal. i. 12) ; but here it is the 
historical element which is predominantly present to his mind. (P’) — 
trép tov duapt. yu.| on account of our sins, i.e. in order to expiate them, 
Rom. iii. 23-26; Gal. iii, 13 ff., al. The connection of the preposi- 
tion with the abstract noun proves that Paul, in saying elsewhere irép 
juov (comp. also Eph. v. 25: izép tHe éxxdAnoiac), has not used the prep- 
osition in the sense of loco, not even in 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. 11.13. The idea 
of the satisfactio vicaria lies in the thing itself, not in the preposition. See 
on Rom. v. 6; Gal. i. 4; Eph. v. 2. It may be added that, except in this 
passage, the expression irép rév duapti@v yu. Occurs nowhere in the writings 
of Paul (not even in Gal. i. 4), although it does in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
v. 1, 3 (2), ix. 7, x. 12. Regarding the distinction between irép and epi 
the remark holds true: ‘‘id unum interest, quod zepi usu frequentissimo 
teritur, multo rarius usurpatur t7zép,* quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. 
praep. de et super locum obtinet,” Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188. — xara 
t. ypag.| according to the Scriptures of the O. T. (‘quae non impleri non 
potuere,” Bengel), in so far as these (as e.g. especially Isa. liii.) contain | 
prophecies regarding the atoning death of Christ. Comp. Luke xxiv. 
Papeete oli, .2e) ACES XVil, 3, xxvi. 22 f., viii: 35 ; 1 Pet. i; 11. 
—The second x. r. yp. does not refer to the burial (Isa. liii. 9) also, as de 
Wette and most interpreters assume, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, 
but, as isto be deduced from the repetition of the ér: before éyny., only to 
the resurrection.* See on John ii. 22. Christ’s death and resurrection are 
the great facts of the redemptive work, borne witness to by the Scriptures ; 
the burial (comp. Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12; Acts xiii. 29), being the conse- 
quence of the one and the presupposition of the other, lies between as an 
historical correlate of the corporeal reality of the resurrection, but not as a 
factor of the work of redemption, which as such would require to have been 
based upon Scripture testimony. — éyfyepra| not the aorist again ; the being 
risen is the abiding state, which commenced with the éyepOjva:. Comp. 2 
Tim. ii. 8; Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 339]. 

Ver, 5. « Res tanti momenti neque facilis creditu multis egebat fen s 
Grotius, — K7¢¢] Comp. Luke xxiv. 34.°— eélra row dddexa, John xx. 19 ff. ; 

1 This holds in the N. T., where the death 2 And that on the third day, which kara rf. 
of Christ is spoken of, only of those passages ypad. must be held to include in its refer- 
in which the preposition is not joined with ence. Comp. Matt. xii. 40; Luke xxiv. 46. 


persons; of persons Paul constantly uses 3 According to Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. 
unép, Comp. oni. 18, Remark. u. Petr. p. 115 ff., the appearance made to 


Ea 


344 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Luke xxiv. 36 ff. After the death of the traitor, there were indeed only 
eleven (hence several witnesses read évdexa, comp. Acts i. 26), nay, ac- 
cording to John /.c., Thomas also was absent at that time ; but comp. 
the official designations decemviri, centumviri, al., where the proper number 
also was often not complete. To reckon in Matthias (Chrysostom, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Bengel, and others) would make a needless prothys- 
teron of the expression. It may be added that under the &@@7 we are always 
to conceive of but one act of appearing, as is especially clear from ver. 8 ; 
hence we are not in connection with roic dédexa to think of a combination of 
John xx. 19 ff. and 26 ff. (Osiander, van Hengel, and others), to which some 
have even added John xxi, That Paul narrates the series of appearances 
chronologically, should not have been questioned by Wieseler (Synopse der 
Evang. p. 420 f.), who assumes only an enumeration of the individual cases 
without order of time. It is implied necessarily in the words of historical 
continuation themselves (ére:ta &¢67), as well as in their relation to éoyvarov 
mavtwv, ver. 8. Comp. also vv. 23, 24, 46. 

Ver. 6 exhibits a change in the construction—which does not continue 
further with 67-—but still belongs to the contents of the rapédwxa and rapé- 
AaBov down to droor. rao (in opposition to Hofmann) ; for the point of 
view of the 6 cai tapéAaBov reaches thus far, and it is only at ver. 8 that per- 
sonal experience comes in instead of it. Nor is it to be inferred from the 
transition from the dependent to the independent construction (so frequent 
also, as we know, in Greek writers), which naturally corresponds with the 
concrete vividness of the representation, that Paul had not included this 
appearance and those which follow in his preaching at Corinth, but, on the 
contrary, was now communicating them to his readers as something new (van 
Hengel). Ver. 8 is especially opposed to this view, since Paul, in referring 
to the appearances of the Risen One, had certainly not been silent upon 
that made to himself (comp. ix. 1). —érdvw] adverbial, not prepositional, 
Mark xiv. 5. Comp. irép. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410. ‘‘ Some” referred 
to by Chrysostom, were mistaken in holding it to mean : above, over their 
heads. — revtaxoc.| Consequently the number of believers in general was 
already much greater than that of those who were assembled, Actsi. 15. The 
remarks to the contrary by Baur and Zeller, according to whom the small 
number 120 is plainly shown by our passage to be incorrect, are not conclu- 
sive, since the appearance here mentioned may, without any arbitrariness, 
be placed at so early a stage that many pilgrims to the Passover may be con- 
ceived as still present in Jerusalem when it took place, and among these 
many non-Jewish disciples of Jesus, especially Galileans. The 120 who 
assembled afterwards were the stock of the congregation of Jerusalem itself. 
Comp. on Acts i. 15. On the other hand, it is possible that the Lord 
appeared to the 500 brethren also in Galilee in an assembly of so many of 
His disciples there (Schleiermacher, Ewald). More precise evidence is 
wanting. Matt. xxviii. 16 ff. has nothing to do with our passage (in oppo- 


Peter also (like all the following ones) was __— was the perplexing contradiction between 
a vision, the determining occasion of which _ the once living and the now dead Messiah, 


CHAP. KV.) 75.8, 345 


sition to Lightfoot and Flatt), but applies only to the eleven. — égdraé] not : 
once for all (Bretschneider, comp. Rom. vi. 10 ; Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10), 
but, as it is wswally understood : at once, simul (Luc. Dem. enc. 21). The 
former sense would need to be given by the context, which, however, from 
the largeness of the number, naturally suggests the latter. Van Hengel, 
too, wrongly insists upon the meaning semel, holding that this appearance 
took place only once, whereas ver. 5: applies to several appearances. The 
peculiar importance of this appearance lies precisely in the s¢mul (Vulgate), 
avorortoc dé Tov TocobTwrv 7 waptupia, Theodoret. This éoaragé and the multi- 
tude of the spectators exclude all the more decidedly the idea of a visionary 
or ecstatic seeing, although some have ascribed ali the appearances of the 
Risen One to this source (see especially, Holsten, zwm Hv. des Paul. u. Petr. 
p. 65 ff.). Here we should have upwards of 500 visions occurring at the 
same time and place, the same in substance and form, and that, too, as psy- 
chological acts of the individual minds. —oi Aciovc] the majority, x. 5. 
Luther gives it wrongly : ‘‘many still.” — pévovory] superstites sunt. Comp. 
on John xxi. 22; Phil. i. 25. “Eyo padprepao étie COvtac, Chrysostom. It 
may be added that the definite affirmation, oi rAciove pévovow, shows how 
earnestly the apostolic church concerned itself about the still surviving wit- 
nesses to the resurrection of Jesus, and how well it knew them. 

Ver. 7. Both of these appearances also are otherwise unknown. — ’Iaxo By | 
The non-addition of any distinguishing epithet makes it more than probable 
that the person meant is he who was then the James xar’ é¢dy4v, James the 
Just,’ not one of the Twelve, but universally known as the brother of the 
Lord (see onix. 4). Perhaps it was this appearance which made him become 
decided for the cause and service of his divine brother. Comp. Michaelis 
on our passage. The apocryphal narrative of the Hvang. sec. Hebr. in Je- 
rome, de vir. ill. 2, is, even as regards time, here irrelevant (in opposition to 
Grotius). —roi¢ aroardédo.e racy | ardoToAor, since it takes in James also (comp. 
Gal. i. 19), must stand here in a wider sense than toi¢ dddexa, but includes 
them along with others. In the Book of Acts, Barnabas, for instance, is 
called an apostle (xiv. 4, 14) ; and in 1 Thess. ii. 7, Timothy and Silvanus 
are comprehended under the conception aréoro%, of whom, of course, Tim- 
othy at least cannot be as yet included here. Chrysostom supposes the 
Seventy to be included. Comp. on xii. 28. In no case is it simply the 
Twelve again who are meant, whom Hofmann conceives to be designated 
here in their relation to the church. How arbitrary that is, and how super- 
fluous such a designation would be! But zaov stands decidedly opposed to 
it ; Paul would have required to write eita rdAwv roic door. Notice also the 
strict marking off of the original apostles by oi dédexa, an expression which 
Paul uses in no other place. 

Ver. 8. Appearance at Damascus. Comp. ix. 1.— Regarding the adver- 
bial goyvarov, comp. Plato, Gorg. p. 473 C ; Soph. Oed. Col, 1547 ; Mark xii. 
22 (Lachm.). It concludes the series of bodily appearances, and thereby sep- 
arates.these from later appearances in visions (Acts xviii. 9), or some other 


1 Comp. Plitt in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. Theol. 1864, p. 28 ff. 


346 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

apocalyptic way. — xdrTwr] is not to be understood, as has been usually 
done, of all those in general to whom Christ appeared after His resurrec- 
tion, but of all apostles, as is the most natural interpretation from the very 
foregoing roi¢ axoor. racv, and isrendered certain by the r@ éxtpoy. with the 
article, which, according to ver. 9, denotes car éoyAv the apostolic ‘* abor- 
tion.”’—The apostle’s sense of the high privilege of being counted worthy 
to see the Risen One awakens in him his deep humility, which was always 
fostered by the painful consciousness of having once persecuted the church ; 
he therefore expresses his strong sense of. unworthiness by saying that he is, 
as it were (@orepe/, guasi, only here in the N. T., often in classic writers), 
To éxtpwpa, the untimely foetus, Arist. Gener. An. iv. 5; LXX. Num. xii. 
12; Job iii. 16 ; Eccles. vi. 8; Aq. Ps. lvii. 9. See the passages in Wet- 
stein, Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 60 f.; and as regards the standing of the word as 
Greek (for which the older Attic writers have éuBAoua), Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 209. In opposition to Heydenreich and Schulthess (most recently in Keil 
and Tzschirner’s Anal. I. 4, p. 212 f.), who interpret in a way which is lin- 
guistically erroneous (adopted, however, already by rwé¢ in Theophylact), 
late-born, born aiterwards in old age, see Fritzsche, /.c. The idea of being 
late-born, i.e. late in becoming an apostle, is conveyed in écyatov ravtwv, not 
What Paul meant to indicate in a figurative way by rt. éxzp. is 
clearly manifest from ver. 9, namely, that he was inferior to, and less worthy 
than, the rest of the apostles, in the proportion in which the abortive child stands 
behind that born mature.” Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ Ut abortus non est dignus hu- 
mano nomine, sic apostolus negat se dignum apostoli appellatione.” See 
also Ignatius, ad Rom. 9. The distinct explanation which he gives himself 
in ver. 9 excludes all the other—some of them very odd—interpretations 
which have been given,* along with that of Hofmann : Paul designates 
himself so in contrast to those who, when Jesus appeared to them, were 
brethren (James too ?) or apostles, and consequently had been ‘‘ born as chil- 
dren of God into the life of the faith of Christ ;” whereas with him the matter 
had not yet come to a full formation of Christ (Gal. iv. 19), as was the case 
with the rest. This artificial interpretation is all the more erroneous, seeing 
that Paul, when Christ appeared to him, had not yet made even the first 


in éxTpwua. 


1The ‘‘abortion” in the series of the 
apostles. Hofmann is wrong in making 


decet ; forhe cites Klausen, ad Aesch. Agam. 
1140, who treats specially of this meaning 


mavrwy extend to the whole of the cases 
previously adduced. That would surely be 
a thing quite self-evident, namely, that in 
a series of cases following after each other, 
the last mentioned is just the /ast of all. 
No, mavtwv is correlative to the preceding 
mao, and the progress of thought is: ‘to 
the apostles all, last of all, however, to me 
also.’’ Thereby Paul gives adequate ex- 
pression to the deep humility with which 
he sees himself added to the circle of the 
apostles. Comp. ver. 9: amocToAwy, atoaTo- 
Aos, and then the retrospective tav ravtwr, 
ver. 10, also the éxetvor, ver. 11.—Hofmann 
seems to take the wozepec in the sense of ut 


of the word, p. 244. 

2 The whole passage is entirely misunder- 
stood by Kienlen in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 
1868, p. 316 ff. 

3 Among these must be placed Calvin’s 
opinion (comp. Osiander): ‘*Se comparat 
abortivo .. . subitae suae conversionis re- 
spectu,’? shared by Grotius and others, in- 
cluding Schrader. So, too, with the view 
of Baronius, Estius, Cornelius & Lapide, 
and others, that Paul describes himself as 
a supernumerary. And Wetstein even sug- 
gests: ‘‘ Pseudapostoli videntur Paulo sita- 
turam exiguam objecisse, 2 Cor. x. 10.” 


CHA P.-Xy¥.. ,' 9,710: 347 


approach to being a Christian embryo, but was the most determined opponent 
of the Lord, and was actively engaged in persecuting Him (Acts ix. 4); 
gor. T. éxtp. does not describe what Paul was then, when Christ appeared to 
him, but what he 7s since that time. — «ayoi] at the end, with the unaffected 
stamp of humility after the expressions of self-abasement put before. — Ob- 
serve further, that Paul places the appearance of the Risen One made to 
himself in the same series with the others, without mentioning the ascension 
which lay between. Certainly, therefore, he did not regard the latter as the 
striking, epoch-making event, which it first appears in the narrative of the 
Book of Acts, forty days after the resurrection. See generally on Luke xxiv. 
51, Remark. But observe also what stress Paul lays here and ix. 1 uponthe 
outwardly manifested bodily appearance of the Lord, with which Gal. i. 15 
does not in any way conflict.’ 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff. is of a different tenor. 

Ver. 9. Justification of the expression oorepel TH éxtpouaTt. Vv. 9 and 
10 are not a grammatical, though they may be a logical, parenthesis. — éya] 
has emphasis : just J, no other. Comp. on this confession, Eph. iii. 8 ; 1 
Tim. i, 15. — 6¢ ov« eiwi «.7.2.] argumentative ; quippe qui, etc. Comp. Ou. 
li. 41, al.; Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 13 ; Matthiae, p. 1067, note 1. — ixavéc] suffi- 
ciently jitted, Matt. iii. 11 ; Lukeiii. 16 ; 2Cor. iil. 5. — xareicbar| to bear the 
name of apostle, this high, honourable name. 

Ver. 10. The other side of this humility, looking to God. Yet has God’s 
grace made me what Tam. Comp. Gal. i. 15. — yapizc] has the principal em- 
phasis, hence again 7 ydapi¢ avrov.— 6 ci] In this is comprehended the whole 
sum of his present being and character, so different from his pre-Christian 
condition. — 7 «ic gué] Comp. 1 Pet. 1. 10: towards me. Plato, Pol. v. p. 
729 D. —ob kev] not void of result. Comp. ver. 58 ; Phil. ii. 16; 1 Thess. 
ili. 5. — éyev.| not : has been, but : has practically become. — 422.4] introduces 
the great contrast to od xev7 éyev., valued highly by Paul, even in the depth 
of his humility, as against the impugners of his apostolic position ; and in- 
troduces it with logical correctness, for mepicodrepov . . . éxoriaca is the re- 
sult of the grace. —repioc.] accusative neuter. Itis the plus of the result. 
Regarding éxoz. of apostolic labour, comp. Phil. ii. 16 ; Gal. iv. 11, al. — 
aitav ravtav| than they all, which may either mean : than any of them, or : 
than they all put together. Since the latter corresponds to the roi¢ aroor. 
raow, ver. 7, and suits best the design of bringing out the fruitful efficacy 
of the divine grace, and also agrees with history so far as known to us, it is 
accordingly to be preferred (Osiander and van Hengel) in opposition to the 
former interpretation, which is the common one. —oi« éy® 08, GAN’ k.7.4.] 
Correction regarding the subject of éxoriaca, not I however, but. Chrysostom 
says well: 7H ovvifer neypnuévocg tarecvodpoobvy Kal Tovto (that he laboured 
more, etc.) rayéwe tapédpaye, kai Td Trav avéOnxe TS Oem. Paul is conscious in 
himself that the relation of the eflicacy of God’s grace to his own personal 
‘agency is of such a kind, that what has just been stated belongs not to the 
latter, but to the former.?— 7 ydpic tr. Ocod civ époi] sc. éxowiace Tepioc. avr. 

1 See Paret in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 2 Augustine, De Grat. et lib. ard. 3, says: 


1859, p. 243 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. “Nonego autem, i.e. non solus, sed gratia 
Krit. 1864, p. 219 f. Dei mecum ; ac per hocnec gratia Dei sola, 


348 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


navt. Not I have laboured more, but the grace of God has done it with me (in 
efficient fellowship with me, comp. Mark xvi. 20). It is to be observed 
that the article before ody éuoi is not genuine (see the critical remarks), and 
so Paul does not disclaim for himself his own self-active share in bringing 
about the result, but knows that the intervention of the divine grace so 
outweighs his own activity, that to the alternative, whether he or grace has 
wrought such great things, he can only answer, as he has done : not J, but 
the grace of God with me. Were the article before civ éuoi genuine, the 
thought would not be: the grace has wrought i with me, but: the grace, 
which is with me, has wrought it. But Beza’sremark holds true for the case 
also of the article being omitted : ‘‘ Paulum ita se ipsum facere gratiae ad- 
ministrum, ut illi omnia tribuat.” There is no ground for thinking even re- 
motely of a ‘‘not alone, but also,” or the like (see Grotius, Flatt, and 
others). 

Ver. 11. Oty] takes up again the thread of the discourse which had been 
interrupted by vv. 9, 10, as in vill. 4, but yet with reference to ver. 9. f. — 
éxeivor| a.e. the rest of the apostles, vv. 7, 8, 9 f. —otrw] so as was stated 
above, namely, that Christ is risen, ver: 4 ff., and see ver. 12. — xa? obrw¢ | 
and in this way, in consequence, namely, of this, that the resurrection of 
Jesus was proclaimed to you, ye have become believers (émor. as in ver. 2). 
—Observe, further, in eire obv éya, cite éxeivor, the apologetic glance of apos- 
tolic self-assertion, which he turns upon those who questioned his rank as 
an apostle. 

Ver. 12. In what a contrast, however, with this preaching stands the 
assertion of certain persons among you that, etc. ! Xpvorée has the main 
emphasis in the protasis ; hence its position. — zéc] expression of astonish- 
ment ; how is it yet possible, that ; xiv. 7, 16; Rom. iii. 6, vi. 2, viii. 32, x. 
14; Gal. ii. 14. The logical justice of the astonishment rests on this, that 
the assertion, ‘‘ there is no resurrection of dead persons,” denies also per 
consequentiam the resurrection of Christ. Ver. 13. —rwéc] quidam, quos 
nominare nolo. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731, also Schoemann, ad Js. p. 
250. See, besides, introduction to the chapter. ’Ev jyiv is simply in your 
church, without any emphasis of contradistinction to non-Christians (Krauss). 
— oi« tori] does not take place, there is not. Comp. Eph. vi. 9 ; Matt. xxii. 
23; Acts xxiii. 8. Comp. also Plato, Phaed. p. 71 E: eimep éore rd avapido- 
keoba, Aesch. Hum. 639 : dak Oavévtog obtic éor’ avacracce. 

Ver. 13. Aé] carrying onward, in order by a chain of inferences to reduce 
the rvéc with their assertion ad absurdum. — ovdé] even not. The inference 
rests upon the principle : ‘‘sublato genere tollitur et species” (Grotius). For 
Christ had also become a vexpéc, and was, as respects His human nature, not 
different from other men (ver. 21). Comp. Theodoret : céua yap kai 6 deoré- 
tne elye Xpiotéc. This in opposition to the fault which Riickert finds with 
the conclusion, that, if Christ be a being of higher nature, the Logos of 


nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo.” looked. 

Therewith, however, the relation of the 1 That is, which stands in helping fellow- 
grace to the individuality, as Paul has ex- ship with me. See Kiihner, II. p. 276. 
pressed it by ov« éyw, adda, is entirely over- 


CHAP. XV., 14, 1d: 349 


God, etc., the laws of created men do not hold for Him. It is plain that 
the resurrection, as well as the death, related only to the human form of 
existence. The cua of Christ (xi. 24; Rom. vii. 4), the céua rie capkic 
abrov (Col. i. 22 ; comp. Eph. ii. 15), was put to death and rose again, 
which would have been impossible, if dvdcracve vexpov (bodily revivification 
of those bodily dead) in general were a chimera, Comp. Knapp, Ser. var. 
arg. p. 316 ; Usteri, p. 364f. ; van Hengel, p. 68f. . Calvin, following Chrys- 
ostom and Theodoret, grounds the apostle’s conclusion thus : ‘‘quia enim 
non nisi nostra causa resurgere debuit : nulla ejus resurrectio foret, si nobis 
nihil prodesset.” Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. But according to this it 
would not follow from the dvdoracce vexp. ov« gor that Christ had not risen, 
but only that His resurrection had not fulfilled its aim. The idea, that 
Christ is azapyf of the resurrection is not yet taken for granted here (as an 
axiom), but comes in for the first time at ver. 20 (in opposition to Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, and others, including de Wette and Osiander), after the 
argument has already reached the result, that Christ cannot have remained 
in the grave, as would yet follow with logical certainty from the proposi- 
tion : dvdoracic vexp. ove éortv. It is only when it comes to bring forward 
the arapy#, that the series of inferences celebrates its victory. 

Ver. 14. Aé] continues the series of inferences. Without the resurrection 
of Jesus, what are we with our preaching! what you with your faith! The 
former is then dealt with in ver. 15 f., the latter in vv. 17-19. — dpa] is the 
simple therefore, thus (rebus ita comparatis). See against Hartung’s view, 
that it introduces the wnexpected (this may be implied in the connection, but 
not in the particle), Klotz, ad Devar. p. 160 ff. —xevdy and xevf are put first 
with lively emphasis. —oi« éyfy.| 1.e. has remained in the grave. — xevdr] 
empty, i.e. without reality (Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 8), without really existing 
contents, inasmuch, namely, as the redemption in Christ and its completion 
through the Messianic owrypia are the contents of the preaching ; but this 
redemption has not taken place and the Messianic salvation is a chimera, if 
Christ has not risen. Comp. ver. 17; Rom. i. 4, iv. 25, vill, 34. = xaé] 
also. If it holds of Christ that He is not risen, then it holds also of our 
preaching that itis empty. — 7 riorig tudv| your faith in Jesus as the Messiah,' 
ver. 11. Christ would, in fact, not be the Redeemer and Atoner, as which, 
however, He is the contents of your faith.? Comp. Simonides in Plato, 
Prot. p. 845 C : xevedv . . . éarida, Soph. Ant. 749 : xevacg yvouac, Eur. [ph. 
Aul. 987, Hel. 36. 

Ver. 15. We should not, with Lachmann, place only acomma after ver. 
14 ; for ver. 15 carries independently its full confirmation with it, and its 
awful thought comes out all the more impressively, when taken indepen- 
dently of what precedes it. The emphasis of the verse lies in the God-dis- 
honouring wevdoudpt. tov Oeov. In this phrase roi Ocov must, in conformity 
with what follows, be genitivus objecti (not sudjecti, as Billroth would make 


1 The reading 7uz4v, which Olshausen pre- is amechanical repetition of the preceding 
fers from a total misapprehension of the jyear. 
connection, has only the weak attestation 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 74 ff. 
of D* min. and some yss. and Fathers, and 


350 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


if: ‘false witnesses, whom God has,” comp. Osiander, et al.) : persons 
who have testified what is false against God. — xara rod Gov] is not to be taken, 
with Erasmus, Beza, Wolf, Raphel, de Wette, and others, as in respect to 
God, of God (Schaefer, ad Dem. I. p. 412 f.; Valck. ad Phoen. 821; 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 272) ; for the context requires the reference to be as 
much in opposition to God as possible, and hence requires the sense : 
against, adversus (Vulgate). Comp. Matt. xxvi. 59, 62, xxvii. 13 ; Mark 
xiv. 56, 60, xv. 4, al. ; Xen. Apol. 13: ov Webdouar kata Tod Peodv, Plato, Gorg. 
p-. 472 B. Every consciously false giving of testimony that God has done 
something, is testimony against God, because an abuse of His name and 
injury to His holiness. — év ov« #yecpev, citep dpa x.t.A.]| whom He has not 
raised, if really thus (as is asserted) dead persons are not raised (Q*). Regard- 
ing «i dpa and eizep dpa see Klotz, l.c. pp. 178, 528. Observe here (1) the 
identity of the category, in which Paul places the resurrection of Christ and 
the bodily resurrection of the dead ; (2) the sacredness of the apostolic testi- 
mony for the former ; (8) the fanatical self-deception, to which he would 
have been a victim, if the appearances of the Risen One had been psycho- 
logical hallucinations, so that the whole transformation of Saul into Paul— 
nay, his whole Gospel—would rest upon this sclf-deception, and this self- 
deception upon a mental weakness which would be totally irreconcilable 
with his otherwise well-known strength and acuteness of intellect. 

Ver. 16. Proof of the dv oix jyeipev, cimep x.t.2. by solemn repetition of 
ver. 13 entirely as to purport, and almost entirely as to the words also. 

Vv. 17, 18. Solemnly now also the other conclusion from the oidé Xporo¢ 
éy#y., already expressed in ver. 14, is once more exhibited, but in such a 
way that its tragical form stands out still more awfully (uaraia and ér éoré 
év T. du. tu.), and has a new startling feature added to it by reference to the 
lot of the departed. — paraia] vain, fruitless, put first with emphasis, as é7z 
is afterwards. Comp. ver. 14. The meaning of the word may be the 
same as xevf in ver. 14 (comp. pdrao¢ Adyoc, Plato, Legg. 11. p. 654 E ; 
Herod. ili. 56 ; pdraoc dokocodia, Plato, Soph. p. 231 B 3; pdratog evyq, Eur. 
Iph. T. 628, and the like, Isa. ix. 4; Eccles. xxxi. 5 ; Acts xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. 
ili. 20), to which Hofmann, too, ultimately comes in substance, explaining 
the riortic waraia of their having comforted themselves groundlessly with 
that which has no truth. But what follows shows that resultlessness, the 
missing of the aim, is denoted here (comp. Tit. iii. 9; Plato, Zim. p. 40 D, 
Legg. v. p. 735 By; Polyb. vi. 25. 6; 4 Macc. vi. 10). This, namely, has 
its character brought out in an awful manner by éru éoré év rT. du. tu.: then 
ye are still in your sins—i.e. then ye are not yet set free from your (pre-Chris- 
tian) sins, not yet delivered from the obligation of their guilt. For if 
Christ is not risen, then also the reconciliation with God and justification 
have not taken place ; without His resurrection His death would not be a 
redemptive death.’ Rom. iv. 25, and see on ver. 14. Regarding the ex- 
pression, comp. 3 Esdr. viii. 76; Thuc. i. 78. See also John viii. 21, 24, 
ix. 41. — dpa xai oi Kou. x.7.A.] a new consequence of e dé X. ov« éyfy., but 


1 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 329, 


CHAPS XV; 531 So, ool 
further inferred by dpa from the immediately preceding érc éoré év taicg auapr. 
iu. : then those also who have fallen asleep are accordingly (since they, too, can 
have obtained no propitiation), etc. — oi xovu7.] Observe the aorist: who 
fell asleep, which expresses the death of the individuals as it took place at 
different times. It is otherwise at ver. 20; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 f. —é 
Xpior6| for they died ' so, that they during their dying were not out of 
Christ, but through faith in Him were in living fellowship with Him. 
Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xiv. 138. We are neither, with Grotius (comp. 
as early interpreters as Chryosostom and Theodoret), to think simply of the 
martyrs (év = propter), nor, with Calovius, widening the historical meaning 
on dogmatic grounds, to include the believers of the Old Testament (even 
Adam), for both are without support in the context ; but to think of the 
Christians deceased. —arddovto| they are destroyed, because in their death 
they have become liable to the state of punishment in Hades (see on Luke 
Xvi. 23), seeing that they have, in fact, died without expiation of their sins. 
That this does not mean : they have become annihilated (Menochius, Bengel, 
Heydenreich, and others), is clear from ér: éoré év 7. du. tu., of which, in 
respect of the dead, the adzé/ea in Hades is the consequence. 

Ver. 19. Sad lot of the Christians (not simply of the apostles, as Grotius 
and Rosenmiiller would have it), if this of kovyfévreo év X. atOAovTo turn out 
to be true! ‘‘If we are nothing more than such, as in this life have their 
hope in Christ,—not at the same time such, as even when xouyévre¢ will 
hope in Christ,’°—then are we more wretched,” etc. In other words: ‘‘If 
the hope of the future glory (this object of the Christian hope is obvious of 
itself, xiii. 13 ; Rom. v. 2), which the Christian during his temporal life 
places in Christ, comes to nought with this life, inasmuch as death trans- 
ports him into a condition through which the Christian hope proves itself 
to be a delusion,—namely, into the condition of azéAea,—then are we 
Christians more wretched,” etc.—The correct reading is e év rH 0. rabry by 
See the critical remarks. In éy rt. fw ratty the main 
emphasis falls upon 7H Cw, as the opposite of xoyunfévtec (comp. Rom. viii. 
38 ; 1 Cor. iii. 22; Phil. i. 20; Luke xvi. 25), not upon rairy (so com- 
monly) ; and pévov belongs to the whole év r. ¢. r. év X. HAmindrec éopév, SO 
that the adverb is put last for emphasis (Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 14, 
ii. 6. 1), not simply to év r. ¢. ratry, as it is usually explained : ‘‘If we are 
such as only for this life (‘dum hic vivimus,’ Piscator) have placed their 
hope in Christ,” Billroth. This trajection of uévov would be in the highest 





X. Han. éop. udvorv. 


1 Kowzaobar is the habitually used New 
Testament euphemism for dying (comp. vv. 
6, 11, 30), and in no way justifies the un- 
scriptural assumption of asleep of the soul, 
in which Paul is held to have believed. See 
against this, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 419 ff. In 
the euphemistic character of that expres- 
sion, however, which classic writers also 
have (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. viii. 2), lies the 
reason why he never uses it of the death of 
Christ. This was recognized as early as by 


Photius, who aptly remarks, Quaest. Am- 
philoch. 187: éri wév otv Tod Xpioctod Oava- 
TOV KadeEl, tva TO TaB0s MiaTwaONTaL: emt 5é 
NMO@V KOLMNOLY, WaTHY OdvYnY TapaynvOnon- 
tat. *"Ev0a mév yap mapexwpnoev H avactacts, 
Oappav cadet Oavatov: évOa S& év éAmiow Ett 
ever, Kolunotv KaAdel K.T.A, 

2The conception of the éAr/s does not 
so coincide here with that of the miovts, as 
Lipsius assumes, Lechtfertigungsl. p. 209. 


352 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


degree violent and irrational. The perfect 7Axérec indicates the continued 
subsistence during this life of the hope cherished ; 2 Cor. i. 10; 1 Tim. iv. 
10, al. See Bernhardy, p. 378 ; Ast, ad Plat. Legg. p. 408. Comp. the 
éoara so frequent in Homer; Duncan, Lev., ed. Rost, p. 368. That the 
hope has an end with the present life, is not implied in the perfect (Hof- 
mann), but in the whole statement from e on to wévov. The participle 
again with éouév does not stand for the tempus jinitum, but the predicate is 
brought into peculiar relief (Kitthner, II. p. 40), so that it is not said what 
we do, but what we are (Hoffer). Comp. as early as Erasmus, Annot. As 
regards év Xpior@, comp. Eph. i. 12 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17; the hope is in Christo 
reposita, rests in Christ. Comp. moreter év 3 see on Gal. ili. 26. Riickert 
is wrong in connecting év X. with pévov (equivalent to év uévm 76 X.): ‘If 
we inthe course of this life have placed our whole confidence on Christ alone, 
have (at the end of our life) disdained every other ground of hope and de- 
spised every other source of happiness, and yet Christ is not risen... is 
able to perform nothing of what was promised ; then are we the most un- 
happy,” etc. Against this may be decisively urged both the position of 
pévov and the wholly arbitrary way in which the conditioning main idea is 
supplied (‘‘ and if yet Christ is not risen”). According to Baur, what is 
meant to be said is: ‘‘if the whole contents of our life were the mere 
hoping,” which, namely, never passes into fulfilment. But in that way a 
pregnancy of meaning is made to underlie the 7Amxétec, which must have 
been at least indicated by the arrangement : ¢ 7Amixéte¢ wdvov éopuev k.T.2. — 
édeewvorepor ravt.| more worthy of compassion than all men, namely, who are 
in existence besides us Christians. Comp. the passages in Wetstein. Re- 
garding the form édeewodc, Which is current with Plato also (in opposition to 
Ast) and others, instead of édevdc, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 87; Borne- 
mann, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 11, Lips. In how far the Christians—supposing 
them to be nothing more than persons who build their hope upon Christ so 
long as they Yive, who therefore after their death will see the hope of their 
life concerning the future défa vanish away—are the most wretched of all 
men, is clear of itself from their distinctive position, inasmuch, namely, as 
for the sake of what is hoped for they take upon themselves privation, self- 
denial, suffering, and distresses (Rom. viii. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 f. ; Col. iii. 
8), and then in death nothwithstanding fall a prey to the azéAeca. In this’ 
connection of the condition until death with the disappointment after death 
would lie the éAeewdv, the tragic nothingness of the Christian moral eudae- 
monism, which sees in Christ its historical basis and divine warrant. The 
unbelieving, on the contrary, live on carelessly and in the enjoyment of the 
moment. Comp. ver. 32, and see Calvin’s exposition. (R*) 

Ver. 20. No, we Christians are not in this unhappy condition ; Cis is 
risen, kai T7v Tov jueTépov owrApog avdoracw éxéyyvov (guarantee) ric jueté pac 
éxouev avaotdcewc, Theodoret. Several interpreters (Flatt, comp. Calvin on 
ver. 29) have wrongly regarded vv. 20-28 as an episode. See on ver. 29. 
—vovi dé] jam vero, but now, as the case really stands. Comp. xiii. 13, xiv. 6, 
al, —arapyy Tov Kexoun.] as first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, predica- 
tive more precise definition to Xpiordc, inasmuch as He is risen from the 


* 


i 


> 


1 — Ss all a tg PA Fey <n 


CHAP: SY. 5- Ree). 200 


dead. Comp. as regards arapyf used of persons, xvi. 15; Rom. xvi. 5; 
Jas. 1. 18; Plutarch, Thes. 16. The meaning is: ‘‘ Christ is risen, so that 
thereby He has made the holy beginning of the general resurrection of those 
who have fallen asleep” (comp. ver. 23; Col. i. 18; Rev. i. 5 ; Clement, 
Cor. I. 24). Whether in connection with azapyfz Paul was thinking pre- 
cisely of a definite offering of first-fruits as the concrete foil to his concep- 
tion (comp. Rom. xi. 16), in particular of the sheaves of the Paschal feast, 
Ley. xxiii. 10 (Bengel, Osiander, and others), must, since he indicates 
nothing more minutely, remain undecided. The genitive is partitive. See 
on Rom. viii. 23. — That by rév xexoiuw. we are to understand believers, is to 
be inferred both from the word itself, which in the New Testament is 
always used only of the death of the saints, and also from the fellow- 
ship with Christ denoted by dzapyf7. And in truth what is conceived of 
is the totality of departed believers, including, therefore, those too who 
shall still fall asleep up to the Parousia, and then belong also to the kexov- 
phuevor (the sleeping ; see ver. 23. This does not exclude the fact that 
Christ is the raiser of the dead also for the wnbelieving ; He is not, however, 
their axapyh ; but see on ver. 22. That those, moreover, who were raised 
before Christ and by Christ Himself (as Lazarus), also those raised by apos- 
tles, do not make the azapy7 7év Kexoyw. untrue, is clear from the considera- 
tion that no one previously was raised to immortal life (to a¢@apcia) ; while 
Enoch and Elias (Gen. v. 24; 2 Kings ii. 11) did not die at all. Christ 
thus remains rpéro¢ é& dvacrdoewe vexpov, Acts xxvi. 23. But the arapyy 
allows us to look from the dawn of the eschatological order of salvation, as 
having taken place already, to the certainty of its future completion. Lu- 
thardt says well: ‘‘ The risen Christ is the beginning of the history of the 
end.” | | . 

Ver. 21. Assigning the ground for the characteristic drapyp tov KeKoup. 
“Hor since (seeing that indeed, i. 21 f., xiv. 16; Phil. ii. 26) through a man 
death is brought about, so also through a man is resurrection of the dead brought 
about.” We must supply simply éo7i ; but the conclusion is not (Calvin and 
many others) e contrariis causis ad contrarios effectus, but, as is shown by the 
dv avépérov twice prefixed with emphasis : a@ causa mali effectus ad similem 
causam contrarii effectus. The evil which arose through a human author is 
by divine arrangement removed also through a human author. How these 
different effects are each brought about by a man, Paul assumes to be known 
to his readers from the instructions which he must have given them orally, 
but reminds them thereof by ver. 22. — @dvaroc] of physical death, Rom. 
v. 12. — dvdoraorc vexpov| resurrection of dead persons, abstractly expressed, 
designates the matter ideally and in general. So also @dvaro¢ without the 
article ; see the critical remarks. 

Ver. 22. More precise explanation confirmatory of ver. 21, so that the 
first d’ avOpérov is defined in concreto by év tH ’Addu, likewise Odvatoc by 
mavrec arofvAckovoly K.T.A. —év 76 ’Adau| In Adam itis causally established that 
all die, inasmuch as, namely, through Adam’s sin death has penetrated to 
all, Rom. v. 12 ; to which statement only Christ Himself, who, as the sin- 
less One, submitted Himself to death in free obedience toward the Father 


304 PAUL'S FIRST .EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19), forms a self-evident exception. — év ro X.] for in 
Christ lies the ground and cause, why at the final historical completion of 
His redemptive work the death which has come through Adam upon all 
shall be removed again, and all shall be made alive through the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. In this way, therefore, certainly no one shall be made 
alive except in Christ,’ but this will happen to all. Since ravrec, namely, 
is not to be restricted to the totality of believers, but to be taken quite 
generally (see below), there thus results more specially as the idea of the 
apostle : Christ, when He appears in His glory, is not simply the giver of 
life for His believing people ; He makes them (through the resurrection, 
and relatively through the transformation, ver. 51) alive unto the eternal 
Messianic (7 (Rom. viil. 11 ; but His life-giving power extends also to the 
other side, that is, to the unbelievers who must experience the necessary 
opposite of the completed redemption ; these He awakes to the resurrection 
of condemnation. Paul thus agrees with John v. 28 f. ; Matt. x. 28; and 
thus his declaration recorded in Acts xxiv. 15 finds its confirmation in our 
text (comp. on Phil. ili. 11). — révrec Cwor.] which is to be understood not 
of the new principle of life introduced into the consciousness of humanity 
(Baur, neut. Theol. p. 198), but, according to the context and on account of 
the future, in the eschatological sense, is by most interpreters (including 
Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, van Hengel, Maier, Ewald, Hofmann, 
Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 145 ; Lutterbeck, II. p. 232 ff.) held to refer only to 
believers. But éxaoroc, ver. 23, requires us to think of the resurrection of . 
all (so also Olshausen, de Wette) ; for otherwise we should have to seek the 
mavtec collectively in the second class érecra oi tov Xpiorov, so that oi rov 
Xpicrov and the ravrec would cover each other, and there could be no men- 
tion at all of an éxacroc év TO idiw Taypare in reference to the rdvrec. Accord- 
ingly we must not restrict Cwor. to blessed life, and perhaps explain (so de 
Wette, comp. also Neander in loc. ; Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 291 f. ; 
Stroh, Christus d. Erstl. d. Entschlaf. 1866) its universality (wévrec) from the — 
(not sanctioned by the N. T.) droxardoracie ravtw (comp. Weizel in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 978; Kern in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1840, 3, p. 24). 
Neither must we so change the literal meaning, as to understand it only of 
the destination? of all to the blessed resurrection (J. Miiller in the Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1835, p. 751), or as even to add mentally the condition which holds 
universally for the partaking in salvation (Hofmann)— which alteration of 
what is said categorically into a hypothetical statement is sheer arbitrariness. 
‘On the contrary, Cworoim. (see also ver. 86), confronted with the quite uni- 
versal assertion of the opponents that a resurrection of the dead is a non ens 
(vv. 12-16), is in and by itself indifferent (comp. Rom. iv. 17 ; 2 Kings v. 
7+: Neh. ix. 6; Theod. Isa. xxvi. 14; Lucian, V. H. i. 22), the abstract 
opposite of @ivaroc (comp. ver. 36), in connection with which the concrete 
difference as regards the different subjects is left for the reader himself to 
infer. As early interpreters as Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret 


1 Von Zezschwitzin the Hrlang. Zeitschr. 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 107 ff., who finds in the - 
1863, Apr. p. 197. Comp. also Luthardt, v.d. whole chain of thought the amoxaragracis 
letzten Dingen, p. 125. TOV TWAVTOV, : > 


CHAP. XV., 20. 3090 


have rightly understood rdvrec Cwor. not simply of the blessed resurrection, 
but generally of bodily revivification, and without limiting or attaching con- 
ditions to the rdvrec. It denotes all without exception, as is necessary 
from ver. 23, and in keeping with the quite universal rdyre¢ of the first half 
of the verse. See, too, on ver. 24. In opposition to the error regarding 
the Apokatastasis, see generally Philippi, Glaubenslehre, III. p. 372 ff. ; 
Martensen, Dogmat. § 286. (s”) 

Ver. 23. Hach, however, in his own division, se. Cworoinfhoetat. — raya} does 
not mean order of succession, but is a military word (division of the army, le- 
gion, Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 11, and see the passages in Wetstein and Schweig- 
hiuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 610 f.), so that Paul presents the different divisions of 
those that rise under the image of different troops of an army. In Clement 
also, Cor. i. 37, 41, this meaning should be retained. — arapyi Xpioréc| as 
Jirst-fruits Christ, namely, vivificatus est. What will ensue in connection 
with the arapyf, after the lapse of the period between it and the Parousia, be- 
longs to the future. It would appear, therefore, as though arapy7 X. were 
not pertinent here, where the design is to exhibit the order of the future 
resurrection (ver. 22). But Paul regards the resurrection of all, including 
Christ Himself, as one great connected process, only taking place in several 
acts, so that thus by far the greater part indeed belongs to the future, but, 
in order not simply to the completeness of the whole, but at the same time 
Sor the sure guarantee of what was to come, the dzapyf also may not be left 
unmentioned. There isno ground for importing any further special design ; 
in particular, Paul cannot have intended to counteract such conceptions, as_ 
that the whole rayva must forthwith be made alive along with its leader 
(von Zezschwitz), or to explain why those who have fallen asleep in Christ 
continue in death and do not arise immediately (Hofmann). For no reader: 
could expect the actual resurrection of the dead before the Parousia ; that 
was the postulate of the Christian hope.'—We may note that, in using arapyf, 
Paul departs again from his military mode of conception as expressed in 
tayua ; Otherwise he would have written dapyéc, apynyéc, érapyoc, Kopvdaioc, 
or something similar. —oi rot Xpictov| the Christians, Gal. v. 24; 1 Thess. 
iv. 16. —év rH rapovsia aitoi| at His coming to set up the Messianic kingdom, 
Meeeeeeetveo, 1 1 Hess, 11.719, ii. 13,.iv. 15; Jas: v: 7 f. 3. 1. John ii. 28 ; 
2 Pet. iii. 4. Paul accordingly describes the réyyza which rises first after 
Christ Himself (as the azapy#) thus : thereafter shall the confessors of Christ 
be raised up at His Parousia. It is opposed to this—the only correct— 
meaning of the words to restrict of roi Xpiorod to the true Christians (oi micro? 
kat of evdoxiunxdtec, Chrysostom), and thereby to anticipate the judgment (2 ~ 
Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10), or to include along with them the godly of the 
Old Testament, as Theodoret, and of late Maier, have done. Not less con- 
trary to the words is it to explain away the Parousia, as van Hengel does : 
‘qui sectatores Christi fuerunt, quam dle hac in terra erat.”. This is gram- 
matically incorrect, for the article would have needed to be repeated ;? in- 

1 This applies also against the view of no other of them that sleep arisen, seeing 


Weiss, dibl. Theol. p. 429, that Paul wishes that Christ has truly arisen already ? 
to anticipate the question, Why, then, has 2 Because évy ty mapove, avtod does not 


/ 


306 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
appropriate as regards expression, for 7 rapovoia tov X. is in the whole New 
Testament the habitual technical designation of the last coming of Christ ; 
and lastly, missing the mark as to meaning, since it would yield only a non- 
essential, accidental difference as to the time of discipleship as the criterion of 
distinction (Matt. xx. 16). (1?) — érevra is simply thereafter, thereupon, look- 
ing back to the arapy4, not following next, as Hofman would have it. The 
intervening period is the time running on to the Parousia. Hofmann inap- 
propriately compares the use of the word in Soph. Ant. 611, where 76 éreira 
occurs and denotes what follows immediately next ; see Schneidewiin on 
Soph. /.c. ; also Hermann 77 loc: ‘‘a quo proximum est cum eoque cohaeret.” 
Ver. 24. Hira 10 rédoc] se. éorat. Then shall the end be, namely, as is clear 
from the whole context, the end of the resurrection. Bengel puts it aptly : 
‘‘correlatum primitiarum’’ (comp. Matt. xxiv. 14, where rd réAo¢ is correla- 
tive with apyf in ver. 8, also Mark xiii. 7, 9) ; although Christ is only the 
Jirst-fruits of the believers, He is nevertheless at the same time the begin- 
ning of a//. According to Paul, therefore, the order of the resurrection is 
this: (1) it has begun already with Christ Himself ; (2) at Christ’s return 
to establish His kingdom the Christians shall be raised up ; (8) thereafter 
—how soon, however, or how long after the Parousia, is not said ‘—sets in 
the last act of the resurrection, its close, which, as is now self-evident after 
what has gone before, applies to the non-Christians.? These too shall, it 
is plain, be judged (vi. 2, xi. 82), of which their resurrection is the necessary 
premiss (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 480 f.). Paul has thus con- 
joined the doctrine of Judaism regarding a twofold resurrection (Bertholdt, 
Christol. pp. 176 ff., 203 ff.) with the Christian faith, in accordance with 
the example of Christ Himself (see on Luke xiv. 14; John v. 29). The 
majority of interpreters after Chrysostom (including Reiche, Ewald, Maier) 
understand 7d réAo¢ of the end of the present age of the world,* the jinal con- 
summation (Weiss), the closing issue of things (Luthardt, »v. d. leteten Dingen, 
p. 127), which includes also the resurrection of all men. (vu?) In connection 
with this Riickert thinks (comp. Kling, p. 505) that eira indicates the am- 
mediate following, one upon the other, of the avdoracw and the rédo¢ ; Ols- 
hausen, again, that Paul conceived the thousand years of the Messianic 
kingdom to come in between the Parousia, and the réAoc, and the resurrec- 
tion of the non-Christians to be joined together with the réAoc. But against 
the latter view it may be urged that, according to the constant doctrine of 


blend together with ot rod X. into a unity 
of conception ; as, for example, tots mAov- 
clots €v TO vv ai@ve, 1 Tim. vi. 17, where tots 
mAove, receives an essential modification of 
the conception by the note of time added. 

1 Within this intermediate time falls the 
continued conquest of Christ over all hos- 
tile powers, vy. 24, 25, whose subjugation 
will not yet be completed at the Parousia. 
This also in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. 
p. 427. To import into this period a process 
of redemption for the non-Christians and 
the wicked (Weizel, Stroh), is neither in ac- 


cord with Paul nor with the New Testa- 
ment generally. 

2 Van Hengel, too, takes it rightly of the 
closing act of the resurrection, but explains 
this in consequence of his incorrect under- 
standing of oi rod X. év TH Tapove. avTov: 
“tum cetert Christi sectatores, qui mortem 
subierant, in vitam restituentur.”’ 

3 Comp. Calvin: ‘* finis, i.e. meta cursus 
nostri, quietus portus, conditio nullis am- 
plius mutationibus obnoxia.’’ Erasmus, 
Paraphr.; “finis humanarum vicissitudi- 
num.’ 


wifes? 


Eas eG 


CHAP, XV., 24. 307 


the New Testament (apart from Rev. xx.), with the Parousia there sets in 
the jinis hujus saeculi, so that the Parousia itself is the terminal point of 
the pre-Messianic, and the commencing-point of the future, world-period 
(Matt. xxiv. 3, al.; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 344). Against the former view it 
may be decisively urged, that eita 7d réA0¢ in the asswmed sense would be 
inappropriate here, where the order of the resurrection is stated and is 
begun with azapy4 ; further, that Paul would not have given, in any proper 
sense at all, the promised order of succession, whether we take ravrec, ver. 
22, simply of believers or correctly of all in general. For in the former case 
there could be no mention at all of several taywara (see on ver. 22) ; and in 
the latter case Paul would have passed over in silence the very greatest 
tayua Of all, that of those who died non-Christians. But how complete 
and self-consistent everything is, if azapy7is the beginning, éze:ta oi Tod 
Xpicrov the second act, and éira 76 rédoc the last act of the same transaction ! 
So in substance among the old interpreters, Theodoret and Occumenius, 
later Cajetanus, Bengel, Jehne, de resurrect. carn. Alton. 1788, p. 19 ; 
Heydenreich, Osiander, Grimm in the Stud. uw. Arit. 1850, p. 784. In ac- 
cordance with what has been said, we must reject also the view of Grotius 
and Billroth, that rd réAo¢ is the end of the kingdom of Christ (comp. Kahnis, 
Dogm. I. p. 575) ; in connection with which Billroth leaves it undecided 
whether Paul conceived that there would be a thousand years’ reign, but 
finds rightly that his conception is different from that of Rev. xx. 1 ff.’ 
The same considerations militate against this view as against that of Riick- 
ert ; moreover, rédoc requires its explanation not from what follows, but 
from what precedes it, with which it stands in the closest relation. This 
also in opposition to de Wette (so, too, Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit- 
alter, p. 140 ; Neander in loc.), who understands the completion of the 
eschatological events (comp. Beza), so that the general resurrection would be 
included in the conception (comp. Theophylact : 76 réA0¢ rév TavTwv Kai avric 
Tic avaordoewc); Similarly, therefore, as regards the latter point, with Lu- 
thardt and Olshausen. Theodoret is right, in accordance with the Pauline 
type of doctrine (comp. Matt. xiii. 39 f.), in remarking already at the pre- 
ceding class (oi rov X.): Kata Tov THe ovvTedeiag Kacpév. For the intervening 
period between the érera and the cita is by no means to be reckoned to 
the aidv ovroc, but to the aidv péA2wv, of which it is the first stage in.time 
and development ; the absolute consummation is then the giving over of 
the kingdom, which is immediately preceded by the last act of the resurrec- 


pote ae 3: 


“) 
n 


1 According to the Apocalypse, between 
the first and second resurrection there is 
the thousand years’ reign, which ends with 
Satan’s being again let loose and again over- 
come and cast into hell. Olshausen, who 
does not admit the variation of the Pauline 
doctrine from the Apocalyptic, holds that 
the Revelation, which handles the doctrine 
€x professo, is only more detailed. But this 
plea would only availif Paul had shown 
himself to be a Chiliast somewhere else. 
This, however, he has never done, often as 


he had opportunity for doing so. In sub- 
stance like Olshausen’s is the view of de 
Wette and of Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, 
1, p. 14, who, however, put this difference 
between Paul and the author of the Apoc- 
alypse, that the former leaves the duration 
of the reign indefinite, and places the 
Messiah’s conflict not at the end of this reg- 
nal period, but throughout the whole time 
of its duration. But these differences are so 
essential, that they would do away with 
the agreement of the two. 


358 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tion (rd réAo¢). Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 657) takes 
to tédoc adverbially, and then the two clauses commencing with éray as 
protases to écyaroc, éyOpd¢ Katapy. 6 Bavaroc, ver. 26, so that in this way det 
yap avrov x.7.A., ver. 25, falls to the second of those two protases as a reason 
assigned, inserted between it and the apodosis ; consequently : then shall 
finally, when... ., when .. ., the last enemy be brought to nought. 'This 
bringing to nought of death, he holds, includes the raising to life of such 
as, being ordained to life, did not belong to Christ during their bodily ex- 
istence, and thus there is formed of these a second raya, for the possibility 
of which Hofmann adduces Rom. ii. 15 f. But in what an involved and 
violent way are the simple, clear, and logically flowing sentences of the 
apostle thus folded and fenced in, and all for the purpose of getting out of 
them at last a second radyua, which, however, does not stand there at all, 
but is only inserted between the lines ; and that, too, such a rdyya as is 
entirely alien to the New Testament eschatology, and least of all can be 
established by Rom. ii. 15 f. (see im loc.) as even barely, possible! And 
how unsuitable it is to treat ver. 25, although introduced with solemn words 
of Scripture, as a subordinate sentence of confirmation, making the chain of 
protases on to the final short principal sentence only the longer and clum- 
sier ! In this whole section withal Paul employs only sentences of short 
and simple construction, without any involved periods. It may be added 
that, from a linguistic point of view, there would be nothing to object 
against the adverbial interpretation of 1d réAoc, considered solely in itself 
(comp. 1 Pet. iii. 8) ; but, after the two elements which have gone before, 
the substantive explanation is the only one which presents itself as accord- 
ant with the context ; nay, the adverbial use would have here, as the whole 
exegetical history of the passage shows, only led the understanding astray. 
— brav rapadi0@ k.7.A.] states with what 7d ré20¢ will be contemporaneous : 
when he gives over the (Messianic) kingdom, etc. The church, or the fellow- 
ship of believers (van Hengel), is never designated by 7 BaovA., not even vi. 
9f.; Eph. v. 5; Col. 1. 18, iv. 115 neither is it so here. The conception, 
on the contrary, is: the last act of Christ’s Messianic rule consists in the 
close of the resurrection, namely, the raising up of the non-Christians ;* 
this He performs when He is about to hand over the rule to God, after 
which the last-named wields the government Himself and immediately, and 
Christ’s Messianic, and in particular His kingly office—the regency which 
had been entrusted to Him by God (Phil. ii, 9 f.)—is accomplished. It . 
was a purely dogmatic (anti-Arian) explaining away of the clear meaning 
of the word to take rapadiddva: as equivalent to xatopforv (Chrysostom) or 
rehewovv (Theophylact) ; such, too, was the interpretation of Theodoret, 
Ambrosiaster, Cajetanus, Estius, and others, including Storr and Flatt, ac- 
cording to which the giving over of the kingdom to the Father denotes the 
producing the result, that God shall be universally acknowledged as the su- 
preme Ruler, even by those who did not wish to acknowledge Him as such, 


1 With which their judgment is necessarily latter as included was not called for by the 
bound up; but an express mention of the connection of the passage. 


Vw 


4 / 


- 





CHAP. XV., 24. 309 
Hilary and Augustine (de Trin. i. 8) have another mode of explaining it 
away : what is meant is the bringing of the elect to the vision of God ; 
similarly van Hengel (comp. Neander): Paul means to say, ‘‘ Christum 
sectatores suos facturum peculium Dei, ut ei vivant ;” and in like manner 
Beza, Heydenreich : we are to understand it of the presentation of the citi- 
zens of the kingdom, raised from the dead, before God. Another mode is that 
of Calovius, Bengel, Osiander, Reiche, al. (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 
280): it is only the form of the rule of Christ (namely, as the reconciler) 
that ceases then ; the regnum gratiae ceases, and the regnum gloriae fol- 
lows, which is what Luther’sand Melanchthon’s exposition’ also comes to in 
substance. No ; Christ, although by His exaltation to the right hand of 
the Father He has become the otv6povoc of God, is still only He who is in- 
vested with the sovereignty by the Father until all hostile powers are over- 
come (comp. Phil. ii. 9 ff.; Eph. i. 21; Acts il. 33 ff.; Heb. 1. 3, 13),? so 
that the absolute supreme sovereignty, which remains with the Father, is 
again immediately exercised after that end has been attained ; the work of 
Christ is then completed ; He gives up to the Father the Messianic admin- 
istration of the kingdom, which has continued since His ascension.* The 
thought is similar in Pirke Elies. 11. ‘‘ Nonus rex est Messias, qui reget 
ab extremitate una mundi ad alteram. Decimus Deus S. B.; tune redibit 
regnum ad auctorem suum.” We must not mix up the spiritual Baov2eia, 
John xviii. 37, here, where the subject is the exalted Lord. —7r6 @e6 x. 
matpi| God, who is at the same time Father, namely, of Jesus Christ. Comp. 
Pee 00r, 1. 5, xi ol 3 Gal. 1. 38:; Eph. i. 3; v. 20; Col. 1.33.1 
Pet. i. 3; Jas. i. 27, iii. 9. Estius says rightly : ‘‘ unus articulus utrumque 
complectens.” See Matthiae, p. 714 f., and on Rom. xv. 6. That Paul, 
however, means by arp Xpiorov, not the supernatural bodily generation, 
but the metaphysical spiritual derivation, according to which Christ is xara 
mvevua dywwotvyc the Son of God, see on Rom. i. 4.—But this giving over of 
the kingdom will not take place sooner than : éray xatapyfoy «.7.2., when He 
shall have done away, etc. Observe the difference of meaning between érav 
with the present (rapadi06) and with the aorist (futur. exact.). See Mat- 
thiae, p. 1195. And this difference of tense shows of itself that of the two 
clauses introduced with érav, this second one is subordinated to the first, 
and not co-ordinated with it (Hofmann). Hence, too, we have no «ai or ré 
with the second érav. It is the familiar phenomenon of the double protasis, 
the one being dependent on the other (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 35 ; 
Anab. ili. 2. 31). —racav apynv . . . dbvau.] every dominion and every power 
and might, is to be understood, as ver. 25 proves clearly, of all hostile powers, 
of all influences opposed to God, whose might Christ will bring to nought 


‘ 1 Luther : Christ is now ruling through the 
word, not in visible public fashion, as we 
see the sunthroughacloud. ‘“ There we see 
indeed the light, but not the sun itself; but 
when the clouds are gone, then we see both light 
and sun together in one and the same subsist- 
ence.’ Melanchthon: ‘‘ Offeret regnum 
patri, i.e. ostendct has actiones (namely, of 


{ 


the mediatorial office), completas esse, et 
deinde simul regnabit ut Deus, immediate di- 
vinitatem nobis ostendens.”’ 

2 Comp. upon the relation of the dominion 
of Christ, as conferred by the supreme Sover- 
cign, the parable in Luke xix. 12 ff. 

3 Comp. von Zezschwitz, J.c. p. 
Luthardt, /.c. p. 128. 


208 ; 


360 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

, 
(katapy., comp. il. 6); consequently we may not explain it simply of de- 
moniac powers (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others, including Heydenreich, 
Billroth, Usteri, Neander, Luthardt), nor refer it to worldly political powers 
as such (Grotius). In opposition to the context on account of rod¢ éxOpotc, 
ver. 25, Calvin interprets it (comp. Cajetanus) : ‘‘ potestates legitimas a Deo 
ordinatas ; and Olshausen understands all rule, good as well as bad, and even 
that of the Son also, to be meant. The subject of xatapy. must, it may be 
added, be the same with that of rapadid¢, consequently not God (Beza, 
Grotius, Bengel, Heydenreich, van Hengel, and others). 

Vv.° 25-28. Establishment of the fact that Christ will not deliver up the 
kingdom until after the doing away of every dominion, etc. (vv. 25-27, 
down to zéda¢ airov), but that then this abdication will assuredly follow (vv. 
27-28).—For He must (it is necessary in accordance with the divine counsel) 
reign (wield the Messianic government) until, etc. The emphasis of the 
sentence as it advances falls on this wntil, ete.— adypic ov x.t.2.] words taken 
from Ps. cx. 1,—a Messianic psalm, according to Christ Himself (Matt. 
xxii. 438 f.),—which Paul does not quote, but appropriates for himself. The 
subject to 6) is not God (so even Hofmann), but Christ (so Riickert, de 
Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, comp. already Chrysostom), 
which is necessarily required by the preceding airév, and by xatapyfon In 
ver. 24, to which 6% «.7.4. corresponds. Not till ver. 27 does God come in 
as the subject without violence and in harmony with the context.— aypuc¢ ov 
indicates the terminus ad quem of the dominion of Christ, after which 
epoch this dominion will have ceased ; see on ver. 24. The strange shifts 
which have been resorted to in order to maintain here the subsequent con- 
tinuance of the rule of Christ (0b r7¢ Baotieiag obk Eotar téAo¢ was added to 
the Nicene Creed in opposition to Marcellus in the second Oecumenical 
Council), may be seen in Estius and Flatt. His kingdom continues, but not 
His regency, ver. 24. The seeming contradiction to Luke i. 33 (Dan. vii. 
14) is got rid of by the consideration that the government of Christ lasts on 
into the aidy uéAAwv, and that after its being given over to the Father, the 
kingdom itself will have its highest and eternal completion (ver, 28); thus 
that prophecy receives its eschatological fulfilment. (v”) 

Ver. 26. More precise definition of the dypic ob by specification of the 
enemy who is last of all to be brought to nought. As last enemy (whose 
removal is dealt with after all the others, so that then none is left remain- 
ing) is death done away (by Christ), (w?) inasmuch, namely, as after comple- 
tion of the raising of the dead (of the non-Christians also, see on ver. 22) 
the might of death shall be taken away, and now there occurs no more any 
state of death, or any dying. The present sets it before us as realized. 
Olshausen imports arbitrarily the idea that in écyaroc there lies a reference 
not simply to the time of the victory, but also to the greatness of the resist- 
ance. To understand Satan (Heb. ii. 14) to be. meant by @dvaroc, with 
Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 373, and others, following Pelagius, is without warrant 


1 Weare not, however, on thisaccount to pronoun has proceeded from the standpoint 
write wédas avrov instead of 7. avrod; the of the writer. 


7 | CHAP. XV., 27, 361 


from linguistic usage, and without ground from the context. As regards 
the personification of the death, which is done away, comp. Rey. xx. 14 ; 
Isa. xxv. 8.’ 

Ver. 27. Iladvra yap... aivrov] Proof that death also must be done away. 
This enemy cannot remain in existence, for otherwise God would not 
have all things, etc. The point of the proof lies in rdyra, as in Heb. ii. 8.— 
The words are those of Ps. vill. 7, which, as familiar to the reader (comp. 
on Rom. ix. 7; Gal. ii. 11), Paul makes his own, and in which he, laying 
out of account their historical sense, which refers to the rule of man over 
the earth, recognizes, as is clear from érav 08 eizy «.7.2., a typical declaration 
of God, which has its antitypical fulfilment in the completed rule of the 
Messiah (the detrepo¢ avOpuroc, ver. 47). Comp. Eph. i. 22; Heb. ii. 8. — 
The subject of ixérage (which expresses the subjection ordained by God in 
the word of God) is God, as was obvious of itself to the reader from the 
familiar passage of the psalm. If God has in that passage of Ps. viii. sub- 
jected all to the might of Christ, then death also must be subdued by Him; 
otherwise it is plain that one power would be excepted from that divine 
subjection of all things to Christ, and the zavra would not be warranted. — 
étav dé eizy x.T.A.] dé leading on, namely, to the confirmation of the giving 
over of the kingdom to God, for which proof is still to be adduced: ‘but, 
when He shall have said that the whole is subjected, then without doubt He 

, will be excepted from this state of subjection, who has subjected the whole 
¥ to Him.” The subject of eixy is not 7 ypady (de Wette, al.), but neither is it 

. Christ (Hofmann), but the same as of irérazev, therefore God, whose word 
im that passage of the psalm adduced is not as regards its historical connec- 
| tion, but is so simply as a word of Scripture. Comp. on vi. 16. The aorist 
eixy is to be taken regularly, not, with Luther and the majority of inter- 


| | preters: when He says, but, like vv. 24, 28, as futurum exvactum : dixerit 
q (irenaeus, Hilary). So, too, Hofmann rightly.2 Comp. Luke vi. 26. Plato, 
; - Parm. p. 148 C; Jon. p. 535 B; also édv ein, x. 28, x11. 15. The point of 
4 5 time of the quando, bray, is that at which the now still unexecuted xdvra 
i _ wnétazev shall be executed and completed ; hence, also, not again the 
* aorist, but the perfect imorétaxraz. The progress of the thought is there- 
S fore : ‘‘ But when God, who in Ps. viii. 7 has ordained the iméraéic, shall 
E have once uttered the declaration, that it be accomplished—this trérakic.” 


This form of presenting it was laid to the apostle’s hand by the fact that he 
had just expressed himself in the words of a saying of Scripture (a saying of 
; God). In Heb. i. 6 also the aorist is not to. be understood as a present, but 
(rad) asa futurum exactum. See Liinemann in loc. — djdov 6r¢] Adverbial, 


ey 


1 [The meaning of this verse, here correct- Say: wavTa vmroréraxta.”? But with what 





ly given, does not seem to meto be ex- 
pressed in the A. VY. or in the revision of 
1881.—T. W. C.] 

2Who, however, with his reference of 
etry to Christ as its subject gains the con- 
ception: ‘As Christ at the end of His 
obedience on earth said : reréAeorar, So shall 
Hie at the end of His reign within the world 


difficulty could a reader light upon the 
analogy of that teréAcorat! How naturally, 
on the contrary, would he be led to think 
of the subject of taéragev, consequently 
God, as the speaker also in eimy! This ap- 
plies also in opposition to Luthardt, /.c. p. 
1381. 


362 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in the sense of manifestly, assuredly ; therefore: it (namely, the rdvra imoré- 
rata) will clearly take place with the exception of Him, who, etc. See regard- 
ing this use of djAov 674, which has to be analyzed by means of supplying 
the preceding predicate, Matthiae, p. 1494 ; Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 661 f.; 
Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 538 A (p. 106). According to Hofmann, djAov 
ore is meant as, namely, as it is used likewise in Greek writers, and especially 
often in grammarians (not Gal. ii. 11); from dyAov to ravra is only an 
explanation interposed, after which the former érav 62 eirn x.7.4. is shortly 
resumed by éravy dé irorayh x.7.A., ver. 28. See regarding dé after paren- 
theses or interruptions, Hartung, Partik. I. p.172 f. But, in the first place, 
Ojdov ort k.T.2. IS a Very essential point, no mere parenthetic thought in the 
course of the argument ; and, secondly, the resumption after so short and 
plain an intercalation would be alike uncalled for, and, through the 
change in the mode of expression (not again with eiry), obscure. — éxrd¢ Tov 
broraé.] i.e. with the exception of God, but Paul designates God as the 
subjecting subject: ‘‘ quo clarius in oculos incurreret, rem loqui ipsam,” van 
Hengel. 

‘Ver. 28. What Paul had just presented in the, as it were, poetically ele- 
vated form érav 6é city x.7.4., he now sums up in the way of simple state- 
ment by érav dé iroray7 x.t.A., In order to make the further element in his 
demonstration follow in accordance with the djAov bri x.7.A. — Kal abvréc] the 
Son Himself also shall be subjected,’ not of course against His will, but as 
willingly yielding compliance to the expiry of His government. The Son 
wills what the Father wills; His undertaking is now completed—the be- 
coming subject is His ‘‘ last duty’ (Ewald). Here, too, especially by the 
older interpreters, a great deal of dogmatic theology has been imported, in 
order to make the apostle not teach—what, in truth, he does teach with the 
greatest distinctness—that there is a cessation of the rule of Christ. The 
commonest expedient (so Augustine, de Trin. i. 8, and Jerome, adv. Pelag. 
i, 6, and the majority of the older expositors) is that Christ according to His 
human nature is meant, in connection with which Estius and Flatt take 
drotay. as: it will become very manifest that, etc. ‘Ambrosiaster, Athanasius, 
and Theodoret even explained it, like Xpcordé¢ in xii. 12, of the corpus Christi 
mysticum, the church. Chrysostom also imports the idea (comp. Theophylact 
and Photius in Oecumenius) that Paul is describing r7v. moAdAgw mpog tov 
matépa oudvorav. —iva 7 6 0ed¢ Ta wavta év rao] aim not of brordgavti adr. T. 7. 
(Hofmann), but of airi¢ 6 vide trorayho. x.7.4., Which is indeed the main 
point in the progress of the argument, the addition of its final aim now 
placing the reader at the great copestone of the whole development of the 
history of salvation. The object aimed at in the Son’s becoming subject 
under God is the absolute sovereignty of God: ‘‘in order that God may be 
the all in them all,” i.e. in order that God may be the only and the immedi- 
ate all-determining principle in the inner life of all the members of the king- 
dom hitherto reigned over by Christ.2 Not as though the hitherto 


1 Urotayyjoerat is to be left passive (inop- éxwv, Comp. ver. 2%. 
position to Hofmann). God is the vroracowyr, 2Melanchthon: “Deus. . . immediate 
Comp. Rom. viii. 20. But Christ is subject se ostendens, vivificans et effundens in 





CHAP. XV., 29, 363 


continued rule of Christ had hindered the attainment of this end (as Hof- 
mann objects), but it has served this end as its final destination, the com- 
plete fulfilment of which is the complete ‘‘ glory of God the Father” (Phil. 
li. 11) to eternity. ‘‘Significatur hic novum quiddam, sed idem summum 
ac perenne. ..; hic finiset apex ; ultra ne apostolus quidem quo eat habet,”’ 
Bengel. According to Billroth, this expresses the realization of the iden- 
tity of the finite and the infinite spirit, which, however, is unbiblical.’ See 
in opposition to the pantheistic misunderstanding of the passage, J. Miiller, 
0. d. Siinde, J. p. 158 f. Olshausen (following older interpreters in Wolf) 
and de Wette (comp. Weizel and Kern, also Scholten in the Jib. Jahrb. 
1840, 3, p. 24) find here the doctrine of restoration favoured also by 
Neander, so that év race would apply to all creatures, in whom God shall be 
the all-determining One. But that would involve the conversion even of 
the demons and of Satan, as well as the cessation of the pains of hell, which 
is quite contrary to the doctrine of the New Testament, and in particular 
to Paul’s doctrine of predestination. The fact was overlooked that év raox 
refers to the members of the kingdom hitherto ruled over by Christ, to whom 
the condemned, who on the contrary are outside of this kingdom, do not 
belong, and that the continuance of the condemnation is not done away 
even with the subjugation of Satan, since, on the contrary, the latter him- 
self by his subjugation falls under condemnation. See, moreover, against 
the interpretation of restoration, on ver. 22, and Weiss, bib/. Theol. p. 481 ; 
Georgii in the Tiib. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 24 ; van Hengel én loc. —év raow] is 
just as necessarily masculine as in Col. iii. 11. The context demands this 
by the correlation with airéc 6 vide x.7.4., for up to this last consummation the 
Son is the regulating governing principle in all, but now gives over His king- 
dom to the Father, and becomes Himself subject to the Father, so that then 
the /atter is the all-ruling One in a//, and no one apart from Him in any. 
This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes év raow as neuter, of the world, 
namely, with regard to which God will constitute the entire contents of its 
being in such a way as to make it wholly the created manifestation of His 
nature ; the new heaven and the new earth, 2 Pet. iii. 18, is only another 
expression, he holds, for the same thing. This introduction of the palin- 
genesis of the universe, which is quite remote from the point here, is a con- 
sequence of the incorrect reference of iva (see above). Moreover, if the 
meaning was to be: ‘ Allin the all,” rao: would require the retrospective 
article, which zdyra has in ver. 27 and ver. 28a. See a number of examples 
of wadvra and ra réyta éori in the specified sense in Wetstein, Locella, ad 


_ Xen. Hph. p. 209. Comp. on Col. iii. 11, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727. 


(x =) - 


Ver. 29. ’Ere‘| for, if there is nothing in this eschatological development 


beatos suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam, 
justitiam et laetitiam.”’’ 

1 Equally unbiblical are the similar inter- 
pretations of the perishing (amoAeva) of the 
individual existence and the regeneration 
of the universe to form an immediate abso- 
lute theocracy (Beck, comp. Rothe). 


2 See on the passage, Riickert, Hxpos. loct 
P. 1 Cor. xv. 29, Jena, 1847; Otto in his 
dekalog. Unters. 1857; Diestelmann in the 
Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1861, p. 522 ff.; Linder in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 571 f., and in the 
Luther. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 627 ff.; Isenberg in 
the Meklenb. Zeitschr. 1864-65, p. 779 ff. ; 


364 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


onward to the end, when God will be allin all, what shall those do, i.e. how 
absurdly in that case will those act, who have themselves baptized for the dead ? 
Then plainly the result, which they aim at, is a chimera ! Usually interpret- 
ers have referred ézei back to ver. 20, and regarded what lies between as a 
disgression ; Olshausen is more moderate, considering only vv. 25-28 in that 
light, so also de Wette ; Riickert, again, holds that Paul had perhaps rested 
from writing for a little after ver. 28,and had had the sentence ‘‘ the dead arise” 
in his mind, but had not expressed it. Pure and superfluous arbitrariness ; 
as always, so here too, ézeé points to what has immediately preceded. But, 
of course, in this connection the final absolute sovereignty of God is con- 
ceived as conditioned by the resurrection of the dead, which, after all that had 
been previously said from ver. 20 onwards, presented itself to every reader as 
a thing self-evident. Hofmann makes ézeé refer to the whole paragraph be- 
ginning with arapy7 Xpiordc, as that is construed by him, down to ver. 26, 
to which vv. 27, 28 have attached themselves as confirming the final abo- 
lition of death. But see on vv. 24, 27.-— Upon the words which follow all 
possible acuteness has been brought into play, in order just to make the 
apostle not say that which he says. — ri rovjoovow| makes palpable the sense- 
lessness, Which would characterize the procedure in the case assumed by eve. 
The future is that of the general proposition,’ and applies to every baptism 
of this kind which should occur. Every such baptism will be without any 
meaning, if the deniers of the resurrection are in the right. Grotius; ‘‘ quid 
efficient” (comp. Flatt). But that a baptism of such a kind effected anything, 
was assuredly a thought foreign to the apostle. He wished to point out the 
subjective absurdity of the procedure in the case assumed. The interpreta- 
tion : ‘‘nescient quid agendum sit” (van Hengel) does not suit the connection, 
into which Ewald also imports too much : ‘‘are they to think, that they 
have cherished faith and hope in vain ?” —trép rév vexpov| The article is 
generic. Every baptism which, as the case occurs, is undertaken for a dead 
person, is a baptism for the dead, namely, as regards the category. It must 
have been something not wholly unusual in the apostolic church, familiar- 
ity with which on the part of the readers is here taken for granted, that 
persons had themselves baptized once more for the benefit of (iép) people 
who had died unbaptized but already believing, in the persuasion that this 
would be counted to them as their own baptism, and thus as the supple- 
ment of their conversion to Christ which had already taken place inwardly, 
and that they would on this account all the more certainly be raised up with 
the Christians at the Parousia, and made partakers of the eternal Messianic 
salvation.” This custom propagated and maintained itself afterwards only 
among heretical sects, in particular among the Cerinthians (Epiphanius, 
Hauer. xxviii. 7) and among the Marcionites (Chrysostom ; comp., moreover, 


Koster in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1866, p. 15 ff. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 457; ad Rom. IL. p. 9. 

Comp. also Elwert, Quaest. et obss. ad philol. 2 It is to be noted that Paul does not speak 

sacram., Tiib. 1860, p. 12 ff. -The various in- at all in a self-inclusive way, as if of some- 

terpretations of older expositors may be thing common to all, but as of third persons, 

seen especially in Wolf. ti wo.noovow K.T.A. He designates only those 
1 Comp. Kriiger, § liii. 7.1; Elwert, p.17; whodidit. Comp. already Scaliger. 


CHAP. XV., 29. 365 
generally Tertullian, de reswrr. 48, adv. Mare. v. 10).1 Among the great 
multitude of interpretations (Calovius, even in his time, counts up twenty- 
three), this is the only one which is presented to us by the words. Ambro- 
siaster first took them so ;? among the later interpreters, Anselm, Erasmus, 
Zeger, Cameron, Calixtus, Grotius, a/.; and recently, Augusti, Denkwiirdigh. 
TV. p. 119; Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219]; Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, 
Maier, Neander, Grimm, Holtzmann (Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 741) also 
ixling and Paret (in Ewald’s Jahrb. IX. p. 247 f.), both of which latter 
writers call to their aid, on the ground, it is true, of xi. 30, the assumption 
of a pestilence having then prevailed in Corinth. The usual objection, that 
Paul would not have employed for his purpose at all, or at least not without 
adding some censure, such an abuse founded on the belief in a magical 
power of baptism (see especially, Calvin in loc.), is not conclusive, for Paul 
may be arguing ev concesso, and hence may allow the relation of the matter to 
evangelical truth to remain undetermined in the meantime, seeing that it does 
not belong to the proper subject of his present discourse. The abuse in 
question must afterwards have been condemned by apostolic teachers (hence 
it maintained itself only among heretics), and no doubt Paul too aided in the 
work of its removal. For to assume, with Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengesch. 
Il. p. 313), that he himself had never at all disapproved of the Barrifecba 
irép Tov vexpov, or to place, with Riickert, the vicarious baptism in the same 
line with the vicarious death of Christ, is to stand in the very teeth of the 
fundamental doctrine of the Pauline gospel—that of faith as the subjective 
ethical ‘‘causa medians” of salvation. For the rest, Riickert says well : 
‘‘Usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo im- 
pugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum, ipsius autem reprehendendi — 
aliud tempus expectari.” The silent disapproval of the apostle is brought 
in by Erasmus in his Paraphrase : ‘‘ Fidem probo, factum non probo ; nam 
ut ridiculum est, existimare mortuo succurri baptismo alieno, ita recte cre- 
dunt resurrectionem futuram.” Epiphanius, Haer. 28, explains it of the 
baptism of the clinici, of the catechumens on their deathbed, who rpé ric 
Tedevti¢ Aovtpow Kataswvvra. So Calvin, although giving it along with an- 
other interpretation equally opposed to the meaning of the words ; also 
Flacius, Estius, a/. But how can dérép tr. vexp. mean jgamjam morituri 
(Estius) ! or how can the rendering ‘‘ wt mortuis, non vivis prosit’” (Calvin) 
lead any one to guess that the ‘‘baptismus clinicorum” was intended, even 


1 Chrysostom says that among the Mar- Barticna wy etAndotas. Tertullian does not 


cionites, when a catechumen died unbap- 
tized, some one hid himself under the bed ; 
then they asked the dead man if he wished 
to be baptized,and on the living one answer- 
ing affirmatively, they baptized the latter 
a@vt Tov amedOdvtos. Of the Cerinthians, 
again, Epiphanius says, /.c.; Kat Ti wapado- 
Tews TPAywa NAOev Els Huas, WS TLY@VY eV Tap’ 
avTois mpopOavévtwy TeAevTATaL avev Bantia- 
patos, adAAous bé avt’ av’Tav eis dvoma exEetvwnr 
BamrigecOar aVATTACEL 


TLUWPLas, 


Umép TOU My ev TH 
avactagaytas avtovs duxyv Sovvar 


name the Marcionites, but quotes the ex- 
planation of our text as applying to the 
vicarious baptism, without approving of it. 

2*TIn tantum stabilem et ratam vult 
ostendere resurrectionem mortuorum, ut 
exemplum det eorum, qui tam securi erant 
de futura resurrectione, ut etiam pro mor- 
tuis baptizarentur, si quem mors praeye- 
nisset, timentes ne aut male aut non resur- 
geret, qui baptizatus non fuerat. 
Exemplo hoc non factum illorum probat, sed 
Jidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit.”” 


366 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

supposing that it had been already customary at that time !! Chrysostom, 
too, runs counter to the words : izép tov vexpov, Tovtéott TOY CwudTwr, Kal yap 
émt Touro Bantityn, Tov vexpov couatoc avdotaow mioTtebwv. Paul, he holds, has 
in view the article in the baptismal creed (which, however, certainly belongs 
only to a later time) : ‘‘I believe in a resurrection of the dead.” So, too, 
on the whole, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Photius, Theophylact, Melanchthon 
(‘‘ profitentes de mortuis”), Cornelius & Lapide, Er. Schmid, and others ; 
and somewhat to the same effect also Wetstein. Comp. yet earlier, Tertul- 
lian : ‘‘pro mortuis tingi pro corporibus est tingi.” 'Theodoret gives it a 
different turn, but likewise imports a meaning, making the reference to be 
to the dead body : 6 Barriféuevoc, not, 76 deoméry ovvOdrtetat, iva Tov Bavarov 
Kolvavioac Kat Ti¢ avactdoeus yévyTat KoLvuvdg et O& VEKPOV EOTL TO GOLA, 
Kal ovK dviotarat, Té OfmoTe Kal Banrtriverac. Luther's explana- 
tion, adopted again recently by Ewald and others, that ‘‘ to confirm the resur- 
rection, the Christians had themselves baptized over the graves of the dead” (so 
Glass and many of the older Lutherans ; Calovius leaves us to choose be- 
tween this view and that of Ambrosiaster), has against it, apart even from 
the fact that izép with the genitive in the local sense of over is foreign to 
the New Testament, the following considerations : (1) that there is a lack 
of any historical trace in the apostolic period of the custom of baptizing 
over graves, such as of martyrs (for Eusebius, H. /. iv. 15, is not speaking 
of baptism), often as churches were built, as is well known, in later times 
over the graves of saints ; (2) that we can see no reason why just the 
baptism at such places should be brought forward, and not the regarding of 
these spots as consecrated generally ; (8) that to mark out the burial-places of 
pious persons who had fallen asleep, would have been in no way anything 
absurd even without the belief in a resurrection. And lastly, baptism took 
place at that time not in fonts or vessels of that kind, which could be set. 
over graves, but in rivers and other natural supplies of water. Other inter- 
preters, following Pelagius, refer izép rt. vexp. to Christ, taking Barr. in some 
cases of the baptism with water (Olearius, Schrader, Lange, Elwert) ; in 
others, of the baptism with blood (Al. Morus, Lightfoot). rév vexp. would 
thus be the plural of the category (see on Matt. ii. 20). ° But, putting aside 
the consideration that Christ cannot be designated as vexpéc (not even ac- 
cording to the view of the opponents), the baptism with water did not take 
place irép Xpiorov,? but ei¢ Xprordv ; and the baptism with blood would have 
required to be forcibly indicated by the preceding context, or by the addi- 
tion of some defining clause. ‘‘ For the benefit of the dead” remains the right 


1 Bengel also understands it of those who 
receive baptism, ‘‘quum mortem ante 
oculos positam habent”’ (through age, sick- 
ness, or martyrdom). Osiander agrees with 
him. But how can vrép tr. veep. mean that? 
Equally little warrant is there for inserting 
what Krauss, p. 130, imports into it, taking 
it of baptism in the face of death: ‘‘ Who 
caused themselves to receive a consecration 
to life, while, notwithstanding, they we7e¢ 


coming not to the living, but to the dead.” 

2 Elwert, p. 15, defines the conception of 
the BanrigecOac umép Xprotod: ‘eo fine et 
consilio, ut per baptismum Christo addic- 
tus quaecunque suis promisit, tibi propria 
facias.’’ But thatis plainly included in the 
contents of the Barr. eis X. or év OvopaTte 
tov kuptov, and one does not see from this 
why Paul should have chosen the peculiar 
expression with vzép, 





CHAP. Xv., 29. 367 


interpretation. Olshausen holds this also, but expounds it to this effect, 
that the baptism took place for the good of the dead, inasmuch as a certain 
number, a zAf#poua of believers, is requisite, which must first be fully made 
up before the Parousia and the resurrection can follow. But this idea must 
be implied in the connection ; what reader could divine it ? Olshausen 
himself feels this, and therefore proposes to render, ‘‘ who have themselves 
baptized instead of the members removed from the church by death.” So, 
too, in substance Isenberg (whose idea, however, is that of a militia Christi 
which has to be recruited), and among the older interpreters Clericus on 
Hammond, Deyling, Obdss. II. p. 519, ed. 8, and Déderlein, Jnstit. I. p. 409. 
But in that case izép r. veep. would be something not at all essential and 
probative for the connection, since it is plain that every entrance of new 
believers into the church makes up for the departure of Christians who have 
died, but in this relation has nothing to do with the resurrection of the 
latter. This at the same time in opposition to van Hengel’s interpretation, 
about which he himself, however, has doubts: for the honour of deceased Ohris- 
tians, ‘* quos exteri vituperare vel despicere soleant.” According to Diestel- 
mann, imép tr. v. is for the sake of the dead, and means: in order hereafter 
united with them in the resurrection to enter into the kingdom of Christ ; while 
the vexpoi are Christ and those fallen asleep in Him.’ But it is decisive against 
this view, first, that there is thus comprised in the simple preposition, an 
extent of meaning which the reader could not discover in it without more 
precise indication ; secondly, that every baptism whatsoever would be also in 
this assumed sense a Barrilecba irép tév vexpdv, whereby therefore nothing 
distinctive would be said here, such as one could not but expect after the 
quite singular expression ; thirdly, that Christ cannot be taken as included 
among the vexpoi, seeing that the resurrection of the Lord which had taken 
place was not the subject of the denial of resurrection here combated, 
but its denial is attributed by Paul to his opponents only per consequen- 
tiam, ver. 13. According to Koster, those are meant who have themselves 
baptized for the sake of their Christian friends who have fallen asleep, i.e. 
out of yearning after them, in order to remain in connection with them, 
and to become partakers with them of the resurrection and eternal 
life. But in this way also a significance is imported into the simple 
trip tov vexpov, Which there is nothing whatever to suggest, and which 
would have been easily conveyed, at least by some such addition as cvyyevav 
kat diAwv. According to Linder, the Barriféuevoc and the vexpoi are held to 
_ be even the same persons, so that the meaning would be : if they do not rise 
(in gratiam cinerum), which, however, the article of itself forbids ; merely 
imép vexpov (vexp. would be in fact qualitative) must have been made use of, 
and even in that case it would be a poetical mode of expression, which no 
reader would have had any clue to help him to unriddle. Similarly, but with 
a still more arbitrary importing of meaning, Otto holds that oi Barzifdu. are 
the deniers of the resurrection, who had themselves baptized in order 
(which is said, according to him, ironically) to become dead instead of living 


1 Comp., too, Breitschwert in the Weirtembd. Stud. X. 1, p. 129 ff. 


368 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


men. Most of all does Hofmann twist and misinterpret the whole passage 
(comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 199 f.), punctuating it thus: éze? ri 
mono. ol Bant. brép TOV vexpOv, et bAwe vexp. ovK éyeipovtat; Ti Kal BamriCovTat ; 
brip avtoev Ti kat jueig Kevdvvebouev; the thought being : ‘‘ Jf those, who by 
means of sin lie in death, become subject in their sins to an utter death from which 
there is no rising, then will those, who have themselves baptized, find no reason in 
their Christian status to do anything for them, that may help them out of the 
death in which they lie ;” nay, why do they then have themselves baptized ? and 
why do we risk our lives for them? ‘Yrép tov vexp. thus belongs to ri rovjo. ; 
the irép avrav, placed for emphasis at the head of the last question, applies to 
the Barriféuevot. Every point in this interpretation is incorrect ; for (1) to- 
do something for others, ze. for their good, is an absolute duty, indepen- 
dent of the question whether there be a resurrection or not. (2) But to do 
something which will help them out of death, is not in the passage at all, but is 
imported into it. (8) Those who can and should do something for others 
are the Christians ; these, however, cannot have been designated so strangely 
as by ol BarriGéuevor, but must have been called in an intelligible way. oi 
miotevoavtec perhaps, or at least of Barrticbévrec. (4) The vexpor can only, in 
accordance with the context, be simply the dead, i.e. those who have died, 
as through the whole chapter from ver. 12 to ver. 52. (5) To give to izép 
avrov another reference than jrép rév vexpov, is just as violent a shift as the 
severance of either of the two from fazrifecba, in connection with which 
they are symmetrically requisite for moré precise definition, and are so 
placed. And when (6) irép aitév is actually made to mean ‘‘in order to in- 
duce them to receive baptism,” this just crowns the arbitrariness of inserting 
between the lines what the apostle, according to the connection, could 
neither say nor think. Moreover, irép aizév could not have the emphasis, 
but only the jueic introduced with «ai, like the Bazrig. previously introduced 
with kai. — ei bAwe vexpoi ovn éyeip.| Parallel to the conditional clause to be 
supplied in connection with éze/. For Paul conceives of the resurrection of 
the dead as being so necessarily connected with the completion of. the 
Messianic kingdom that the denial of the one is also the denial of the other. 
If universally (as v. 1) dead persons cannot be raised up, why do they have 
themselves baptized also for them? since plainly, in that case, they would have 
nothing at all to do for the dead. See, generally, on Rom. viii. 24 ; Pflugk, 
ad Hee, 515 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152. This ‘‘ also” betokens the (entirely 
useless) superinduced character of the proceeding. To refer ei éye/p. still to 
what precedes (Luther and many others, the texts of Elzevir, Griesbach, 
Scholz ; not Beza) mars the parallelism ; the addition of the conditional 
clause to éret has nothing objectionable in itself (in opposition to van 
Hengel), Plato, Prot. p. 318 B; Xen. <Anab. vi. i. 30, vii. 6. 22 ;-4 Mace. 
vili. 8. (x?) 

Ver. 30. How preposterously 2e also are acting in that supposed case ! — 
cai] does not, as some fancy, determine the meaning of the preceding Barr. 
to be that of a baptism of suffering, but it adds a new subject, whose con- 
duct would likewise be aimless. — jueic] Land my compeers, we apostolic 
preachers of the gospel, we apostles and our companions. Paul then, in 





GHAR, XY... 01, 32. 369 


ver. 31 f., adduces himself, his own fortunes, in an individualizing way as a 
proof. The argument is, indeed, only for the continuance of the spirit 
(comp. Cicero, Tusc. i. 15) ; but this, when hoped for as blessedness, has 
with Paul the resurrection as its necessary condition. 

Ver. 31. ’Arofvackw| I am occupied with dying, am a moribundus. See 
Bernhardy, p. 370, and van Hengel. Strong way of denoting the deadly 
peril with which he sees himself encompassed daily. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 11, 
xi. 23 ; Rom. viii. 36, and the parallel passages in Wetstein. The perfect 
as in Eur. Hec. 431, would have been still stronger. —v»4|a very frequent 
term of asseveration in classical writers (in the New Testament only here), 
always with the accusative of the person or thing by which the asseveration 
is made (Kiihner, II. p. 396). By your boasting, which I have in Christ, i.e. 
as truly as I boast myself of you in my fellowship with Christ, in the service 
of Christ. Comp. Rom. xv. 17. The boasting, which takes place on the 
part of the apostle, is conceived of by him asa moral activity, which be- 
longs to him. Comp. the opposite woudpy éyerv, uéuryv Everv, and the like, 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 732. — tuerépav] is to be understood objectively 
(Matthiae, p. 1032 ; Mitzner, ad Antiph. p. 221 ; Kiihner, il. § 627, A. 6). 
Comp. xi. 24; Rom. xi. 31. The expression brings out more strongly the 
reference to the person (as truly as ve are the subject of my boasting). The 
Corinthians, whose subsistence as a church is an apostolic boast for Paul. 
can testify to himself what deadly perils are connected with his apostolic 
work. He thus guards himself against every suspicion of exaggeration and 
‘bragging. The asseveration does not serve to introduce what follows (Hof- 
mann), since that does not come in again as an assertive declaration, but in 
a conditional form. 

Ver. 32. Something of a special nature after the general statement in ver. 
31. — If I after the manner of men have fought with beasts in Ephesus, what is 
the profit (arising therefrom) to me ?— kata dvfpwrov| has the principal em- 
phasis, so that it contains the element, from which follows the negative in- 
volved in the question of the apodosis : ‘‘ then itis projitless for me.” And , 
the connection yields from this apodosis as the meaning of xara dvOpwror : 
after the manner of ordinary men, 7.e. not in divine striving and hoping, but 
only in the interest of temporal reward, gain, glory, and the like, whereby 
the common, unenlightened man is wont to be moved to undertake great 
risks. If Paul has fought in such a spirit, then he has reaped nothing from 
it, for he xa 7uépav arofvgoxer. The many varying explanations’ may be seen 
in Poole’s Synopsis. Against Riickert, who explains it : ‘‘ according to 
human ability, with the exertion of the highest power,” it may be decisively 
urged that xara dvfp. in all passages does not denote what is human per ev- 
cellentiam. If, therefore, the context here required that card av§p. should ex- 
press the measure of power (which reference, however, lies quite remote), 
then we must explain it as : with ordinary human power, without divine power. 
According to Riickert’s view, moreover, xara dv@p. would not be at all the 


1 Chrysostom and Theophylact: écov ro doret: Kara avOpwmvov Aoyropov Onpiwy 
eis avOpmrovs, as far as a deast-fight can éyevduny Bopa. 
take place in reference to men. Theo- 


a0 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

principal element of the protasis, which, however, from its position it must 
necessarily be. Interpretations such as exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmiiller, 
Heydenreich), or wt hominum more loquar (Kstius), are impossible, since 
Zéyw or Aaa does not stand along with it. The conjectwre was hazarded : 
Kata avOporev (Scaliger). — éOyproudynoa| Onpiopayeiv, to fight with wild beasts 
(Diod., iii..42 ; Artem, ii. 54, v. 49), is here a significant jigurative descrip- 
tion of the jight with strong and exasperated enemies. So Tertullian (De resurr’. 
48: ‘‘depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas sc. bestias Asiaticae pressurae”’), 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Sedulius, Beza, Grotius, 
Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Valckenaer, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, as 
well as Schrader, Riickert,Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, 
Maier, Hofmann, Krauss. Comp. Appian. B. C. p. 763 (in Wetstein), 
where Pompeius says : otoic Ogpiowe wayducba. Ignatius, ad Rom. 5 : ard Lupiac 
névpe “Pounce Inpiopaye bia yg Kai Oardoonc, ad Tars. 1, ad Smyrn. 4. Comp. 
Tit. i. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; Ignatius, ad Hph. 7, as also in classical writers 
brutal men are called Oypia ; (Plato, Phaed. p. 240 B ; Aristophanes, Wub. 184 ; 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 114). See also Valckenaer, p. 332. Paul takes 
for granted that his readers were acquainted with what he describes in such 
strong language, as he might assume, moreover, that they would of them- 
selves understand his expression figuratively, since they knew, in fact, his 
privilege of Roman citizenship, which excluded a condemnation ad bestias, 
ad leonem. His lost letter also may have already given them more detailed 
information. Nothwithstanding, many interpreters, such as Ambrosias- 
ter, Theodoret, Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius & Lapide, 
Lightfoot, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, have explained 
this of an actual fight with beasts, out of which he had been wonderfully de- 
livered.’ It is objected as regards the privilege of a Roman citizen (see in 
particular Flatt), that Paul was in point of fact scourged, etc., Acts xvi. 
22 f. But in Acts, Zc¢., Paul did not appeal to his right of citizenship, but 
made it known only after he had suffered scourging and imprisonment, 
whereupon he was forthwith set free, ver. 37 ff. Before he was thrown to 
the beasts, however, he would, in accordance with his duty, have appealed 
to his right of citizenship, and thereby have been protected. And would 
Luke in the Acts of the Apostles have left unmentioned an incident so en- 
tirely unique, which, among all the wonderful deliverances of the apostle, 
would have been the most wonderful ? Would not Paul himself have named 
it with the rest in 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff., and Clement in 1 Cor. 5 ?— Upon the 
non-literal interpretation,’ however, it cannot be proved whether a single 


1¥From this “Uiteral interpretation arose 
the legend in the apocryphal Acta Pauli in 
Nicephorus, H. #. ii. 25 (p. 175, ed. Paris, 
1630), that he was thown first of all to a 
lion, then to other’ beasts, but was left un- 
touched by them all.—Van Hengel (comp. 
previously his Annot. p. 208), while likewise 
holding fast the literal view, has explained 
it only of a supposed case: ‘‘ Summamus, me 
Ephesi depugnasse cum feris,” etc. But 


this would not at all fit into the connection 
with the actual dangers and _ sufferings 
which Paul has mentioned before. Ob- 
serve, on the contrary, the climax: kuvdv- 
vevouey, amoOvickw, eOnpionaxnoa, Which 
latter word brings forward a particular in- 
cident, which has occurred, as proof of the 
general amo@vycKkw. 

2 Which Krenkel also follows in Hilgen- 
feld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 868 ff., assuming in 


a 


CHAP. XV., 33. d71 


“event, and if so, which, is meant. Many of the older expositors think, with 


Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, of the uproar of Demetrius in Acts 
xix. But in connection with that Paul himself was not at all in danger ; 
moreover, we must assume, in accordance with Acts xx. 1, that he wrote 
before the uproar. Perhaps he means no single event at all, but the whole 
heavy conflict which he had had to wage in Ephesus up to that time with ex- 
asperated Jewish antagonists, and of which he speaks in Acts xx. 19 : wera 

. . daxpbor x. Teipacudv K.T.2.— Ti por Td bdedoc¢;| what does it profit me? 
The article denotes the definite profit, conceived as result. The self-evident 
answer is : nothing! Comp. ix. 17. As the gain, however, which he gets 
from his fight waged not xara avOpwror, he has in view not temporal results, 
founding of churches and the like, but the futwre glory, which is conditioned 
by the resurrection of the dead (comp. Phil. iii. 10, 11) ; hence he continues : 
el vekpol K.T.2. — el vexpol ovk éyeip.] is referred by the majority of the old 
interpreters (not Chrysostom and Theophylact, but from Pelagius and 
Theodoret onwards) to the preceding. It would then be a second condi- 
tional clause to ri yor Td dpeA0¢ (See On xiv. 6) ; but it is far more suitable to 
the symmetry in the relation of the clauses (comp. ver. 29) to connect it 
with what follows (Beza, Bengel, Griesbach, and later expositors). For the 
rest, it is to be observed that ¢ vexp. oik éye(p. corresponds to the thought 
indicated by xara dvOp. as being in correlative objective relation to it ; fur- 
ther, that Paul has not put an oviv or even a yap after ei, but has written 
asyndetically, and so in all the more vivid and telling a manner ; likewise, 
that for the apostle moral life is necessarily based on the belief in eternal 
redemption, without which belief—and thus as resting simply on the ab- 
stract postulate of duty—it cannot in truth subsist at all ; lastly, that the 
form of a challenge is precisely fitted to display the moral absurdity of the 
premiss in a very glaring light, which is further intensified by the fact that 
Paul states the dangerous consequence of the earthly eudaemonism, which 
Th yaorTpi petpet Kai Toie aicyxioroig THY evdatmoviav (Dem. 324, 24) in set words 
of Scripture (comp. Chrysostom), LXX. Isa. xxii. 18. Analogies to this 
Epicurean maxim from profane writers, such as Euripides, Alcest. 798, may 
be seen in Wetstein ; Jacobs, Del. epigr. vii. 28; Dissen, ad Pindar. p. 
500 ; comp. Nicostr. in Stob. Mlor. lxxiv. 64 : 7d CH obdév GAA éoTiv F boric 
av dayn. See also Wisd. ii. 1 ff. — aipcov] light-minded concrete expression 
for what is to be very soon. Comp. Theocr. xiii. 4. —It is not implied, 
however, in aipiov yap arofvjok. that ei vexpoi obx éy. includes the denial of 
life after death absolutely (Flatt, Riickert, a/.), but Paul conceives of death 
as the translation of the soul into Hades (comp. however, on Phil. i. 25 f., 
Remark), from which the translation of the righteous (to be found in Para- 
dise) into the eternal Messianic life is only possible through the resurrec- 
tion. ; 

Ver. 33 f. The immoral consequence of the denial of the resurrection 
(ver. 32) gives occasion to the apostle now in conclusion to place over 


connection with it a use of language Mark i. 18, which resolves itself into a hy- 
among the primitive Christians based upon pothesis incapable of proof. 


392 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


against that Epicurean maxim yet a word of moral warning, in order thereby 
to express that the church should not be led astray, 7.e. be seduced into 
immorality (x/avac$e, passive, see on vi. 9), by its intercourse with those 
deniers who were in its bosom. (rivéc év tyuiv, ver. 12 ; comp. ver. 34). — 
o0eipovowy k.T.2.] justification of the admonition yu rAavdobe. The words 
(forming an Iambic trimeter acatalectic *) are from the Thais of the comic 
poet Menander (see his Mragmenta, ed. Meineke, p. 75); although it still 
remains a question whether Paul really reeognized them as an utterance of 
this comic poet (as a Mevdvdpevog dwvy, Lucian, Am. 48), or only generally 
as a common Hellenic saying, which, just as such, may have been taken up 
by that poet.also. The latter is probable from the proverbial character of 
the words, and in the absence of any indication whatsoever that they are the 
words of another. Similar classical passages may be seen in Alberti, Obss. 
p. 356 ff., and Wetstein. Comp. especially, Theognis 35 f. — 76” ypyord} 
good morals, the opposite being xaxd, Soph. O. R. 610, Antig. 516, and 
rovypd, Plato, Gorg. p. 499 E, Phil. p. 40 E ; Plat. Def. p. 412 E: ypnord- 
tne WOove ardaotia per’ evdoylotiac. — djuaAiat xaxai] Vulgate : colloquia mala. 
So Luther, Erasmus, and many, including van Hengel and Krauss. Comp. 
Dem. 1468, 27, 1466, 2; Xen. Mem.i. 2.6. But the context does not 
justify this restriction of the conception. Comp. Beza. Hence it is rather : 
good-for-nothing intercourse, bad company. Regarding the plural, comp. 
Plato, Pol. p. 550 Bi: éurriag . . . naxaic kexpzoba, Soph. O. R. 1489 ; Xen. 
Mem. iii. 7. 5, Hier. iv. 1. Inthe application the readers were meant to 
think of intercourse with the deniers of the resurrection, to be on their 
guard against moral contagion through them. — éxv#bare dixaiwe, K. w7) duapr. | 
Parallel to 7 rAavache, but representing the readers as already disturbed in 
the moral clearness and soundness of their judgment, already transferred 
by the influence of those rtivéc, ver. 34, into a certain degree of moral bond- 
age (intoxication); for the idea of being completely sobered from the con- 
dition in which they were before their conversion (Hofmann) is remote from 
the text, as, in particular, the very ground assigned, which immediately 
follows, points to the hurtful influence of the rvvéc¢. He separates the church 
from these individuals among her members ; the former is not to let herself 
be injured through the latter (v. 6), but to become sober, in so far as she 
has already through them experienced loss of moral soberness. Become sober 
after the right fashion, properly as it behoves. Comp. Livy, i. 41 : exper- 
giscere vere; Homer, Od. xiv. 90: obk éféAovor dixaiwg pvacba, Dem. 1180, 
25. Comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 547. As regards éxvfderv, to become sober 
ina non-literal respect, comp. Plutarch, Dem. 20; Aret. iv. 3; Joeli. 5. 
Bengel, we may add, says well: ‘‘éxv#pare exclamatio plena majestatis 
apostolicae.”” ‘The aorist imperative denotes the swift, instant realization 
of the becoming sober ; 1) duaprdévere,? on the contrary, requires the con- 


1 The reading xp7jc (Lachmann ; Elzevir, all. 
with wrong accent: xpj06’), which is, how- 2 The context gives no warrant for lend- 
ever, almost without support, suits the ing (comp. on Eph. iv. 26) to the imperative 
metre. According to the correct reading, vim futuri (Bengel, Krauss). As regards 
xenora, Paul has left the metrical form out ‘the general» auapraverv, comp. the morjoae 
of account, perhaps was not aware of it at kaxov pydév, 2 Cor. xiii. 7. 


CHAP. XV., 35. 373 


tinuous abstinence from sinning, — dyvuciav yap x.t.A.] for some persons have 
ignorance of God ; how carefully should you guard yourselves from being 
befooled by such! ’Ayvooia (1 Pet. ii. 15) is the opposite of yraorc, see 
Plato, Pol. v. p. 477 A, Soph. p. 267 B. The rivéc are those spoken of in 
ver. 12, not, as Billroth arbitrarily assumes, only a small portion of them. 
The nature of their unbelief in the resurrection is apprehended as in Matt. 
xxii. 29. The expression ayy. tye, ‘ gravior est phrasis quam ignorare,” 
Bengel. They are affected with it. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 574 
E. —rpoc évtp. bu. Aéyo| For it disgraced the church, that such rivée were 
within it ; all the more alert should it be. Comp. vi. 5, v. 6. ‘Ywyiv be- 
longs to Aéyo. 


REMARK on vv. 32-34.—Billroth, followed by Olshausen, is too hasty in in- 
ferring from ver. 32 that the opponents of a resurrection would themselves 
have abhorred the maxim ¢aywev x.r.A. Paul assumes of his readers generally 
that they abhorred that maxim as anti-Christian ; but the tivéc among them, 
who denied the resurrection, must, according to the warning and exhortation 
vv. 33, 34, have been already carried away in consequence of this denial to a 
frivolous tendency of life ; otherwise Paul could not warn against being led 
away by their immoral companionship (ver. 33). Nay, several others even 
must already have become shaken in their moral principles through the evil 
influence of the tivéc ; else Paul could not give the exhortations which he does 
in ver. 34. For that, in ver. 33 f., he is not warning against mistaking and neg- 
lecting of saving truths, as Hofmann thinks, but against corruption of wholesome 
habits, consequently against immorality, is certain from 747 in the words of 
Menander, and from 7 duapr. ; hence, also, the danger of going astray is not 
to be conceived of as having arisen through intercourse with heathen fellow- 
countrymen (Hofmann), but through association with those rivé¢ in the church, 
who had become morally careless by reason of the denial of the resurrection. 
This is demanded by the whole connection. The tivéc were sick members of 


the church-body, whom Paul desires to keep from further diffusion of the evil, 


alike in faith and in life. 


Ver. 35. The discussion on the point, that the dead arise, is here closed. 
But now begins the discussion regarding the nature of the future bodies. 
This is the second, the special part of the apology, directed, namely, against 
the grounds upon which they disputed the resurrection. — a7 épei tic] but; 
notwithstanding of my arguments hitherto adduced, some one will say. 
Comp. Jas. ii. 18. ‘‘Objicit in adversa persona quod doctrinae resurrecti- 
onis contrarium prima facie videtur ; neque enim interrogatio ista quae- 
rentis est modum cum dubitatione, sed ab impossibili arguentis,”’ Calvin. — 
mac] This general and not yet concretely defined expression is afterwards 
fixed more precisely by roiw 68 cduatt. The dé places ré¢ and zoiw dé couate 
in such a parallel relation (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 168 f.; Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 362) that it does not, indeed, mean or again (Hofmann), but sets 
over against the réc that which is intended to be properly the scope of the 
question : but (I mean) with what kind of a body do they come? Then from 
ver. 36 onward there follows the answer to the question, which has been 


thus more precisely formulated. — épyovra:| namely, to those still alive at the 
sip 


Swe PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Parousia, 1 Thess. 1v. 16 f. The presents éyeip. and épy. bring what is in 
itself future vividly before us as a present object of contemplation. Comp. 
Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. iv. 39. So the same tense may bring the past also 
before us as present (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 253). Erasmus puts it hap- 
pily : ‘‘actio rei declaratur absque significatione temporis.” 

Vv. 36-41. In the first place, analogies from the experience of nature,’ by 
way of preparation for the instruction, which then follows at ver. 42 ff., 
regarding the rovéry¢ of the resurrection-body inquired about. — ddpwv] The 
deniers have thus, on the assumption of the identity of the resurrection-body 
with the body which is buried, found the zovéry¢ of the former to be incon- 
ceivable ; but how joolish is this assumption ! The nominative is not address, 
because without the article, but exclamation ; so that to explain it gram- 
matically we must supply ei. Comp. Luke xii. 20 (uachmann, Tischendorf), 
and see, generally, Bernhardy, p. 67 ; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228] ; Kihner, 
Il. § 507 ¢, Remark. — od 6 oreipewc] What thou sowest, is not made alive, etc. 
The oi has the emphasis of the subsequent contrast with the divine agency 
in ver. 388: Thou on thy part; hence we must not take dgpev ob together. 
— Cworoveirac| description (suggested by the thing typified) of the springing 
up of the seed, which must first of all die ; inasmuch, namely, as the living 
principle in it, the germ, grows out thereof, and the grain containing it be- 
comes subject to decomposition. Comp. John xii. 24. The dmofaveiy is 
therefore, in the case of the seed sown, the analogue of the decay of the body 
buried. As the seed-corn in the earth must die by decomposition, in order 
to become alive in the springing germ, so must the body decay in the earth 
in order to become alive in the resurrection-body arising out of it at the res- 
urrection of the dead. That it is not simply the necessity of dying to attain 
the resurrection-life (van Hengel ; comp. Riickert and Holsten 2. Hv. d. 
Paul. u. Petr. p. 874) which is depicted, is clear from this, that in the ex- 
planation of the resurrection the being sown necessarily represents the burial, 
and consequently the arofaveiv of the seed-corn, because it follows after the 
being sown, must correspond to the decay of the body. (z?) . 

Ver. 37. Kai 6 oreiperc] And what thou sowest,—not the body, which is to be, 
sowest thou. °O omeiperc makes the attention rest upon itself first in general, 
independently of what follows, which forms a complete sentence by itself. 
See on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14; Luke xxi. 6. What shall spring out of the 
grain, the plant, Paul calls ro cpa Td yevnodpu., because he has it before 
his mind as the analogue of the resurrection-body. The emphasis, however, 
lies upon rd yevno. — yuuroy Kébxxov] a naked grain, which is not yet clothed, 
as it were, with a plant-body (see what follows). Comp. 2 Cor. v. 3. To 
this future plant-body corresponds the future resurrection-body with which 
that, which is buried and decays, is clothed. That it is not the soul or the 
avevua of the departed which corresponds to the yuuvd¢e xéxkog (Holsten), is 
shown by 6 omeipere ; comp. with ver. 42 ff. —e rbyor citov| it may be of 
wheat. Here, too, ei riyor does not mean, for example, but, if it so happens 
(that thou art just sowing wheat). See on xiv. 10. —7% two rev Aowrov] neuter, 


1 Comp. Clement, 1 Cor. 24, 


‘= 





ae a a sr: - ay =." -_ 


CHAP. Xv., 38-41. 375 


We are tosupply from the connection ozepuatwv. Comp. Niigelsbach on the 
Lliad, p. 804, ed. 3. 

Ver. 38. ‘0 dé e6¢] setting over against the ot 6 omeipecc, ver. 86, what is 
done on God’s part with the seed which on man’s part is sowed. —76é2.] has 
willed. It denotes the (already at the creation) completed act of the divine 
volition as embodied in the laws of nature. —x«ai] and indeed, as ili. 5. — 
The diversity of the (peculiar, idvov) organisms, which God bestows upon—.e. 
causes to spring forth out of—the different seeds sown, while preserving 
the identity of the kinds, exposes all the more the folly of the question : 
Toiw 68 cOpate épyovta, in So far as it was meant to support the denial of the 
resurrection. As if God, who gives such varied plant-bodies to the sown 
grains, each according to its kind, could not also give new resurrection- 
bodies to the buried dead! How foolish to think that the same body which is 
buried (ase.g. the Pharisees conceived of the matter) must come forth again, 
if there is a resurrection! Every stalk of wheat, etc., refutes thee ! 

Vv. 389-41. In order to make it conceivable that the same body need not 
come forth again, further reference is now made to the manifold diversity of 
organic forms in nature ; so also faith in the resurrection cannot be bound 
up with the assumption of the sameness of the present and the future bodily 
organism. Very diverse are, namely: (1) the kinds of animal flesh (ver. 
39) ; (2) the heavenly and earthly bodies (ver. 40) ; and (8) the lustre of the 
sun, of the moon, and of the stars (ver. 41). — capé xryvév] flesh of cattle, 7.e. 
not guadrupedum generally (so de Wette and Osiander, following older 
interpreters), but also not simply jwmentoruwm (van Hengel), but pecorum 
(Vulgate), which are kept for household use and for burden-bearing ; Plato, 
Peete > Herod. 41 ; Xen. Anad. i. 1. 19, iv. 7. 17; Luke x. 
34; Acts xxill. 24. —ocduata éixovpdyia] heavenly bodies, i.e. bodies to be 
found in heaven. Comp. on John iii. 12; Phil. 11. 10. The bodies of the 
angels are meant by this (Matt. xxii. 30 ; Luke xx. 36; Phil. J.c.). So, too, 
de Wette.* Were we to understand by these words, as is wswally done (so, 
among others, Hofmann ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. Test. I. p. 265 ; Delitzsch, 
Psychol. p. 66 ; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 292 f.), the heavenly bodies (sun, 
moon, and stars), we should be attributing to the apostle either our modern 
use of language, or the non-biblical mode of regarding the stars as living 
beings (see Galen, de usu part. 17 in Wetstein®?), which is not to be proved 
even from Job xxxvill. 7. The same holds in opposition to Billroth, who 


-understands the words as meaning heavenly organisms generally and indefi- 


nitely, from which sun, moon, and stars are then named by way of example. 
Sun, moon, and stars are not comprehended at all under cépara érovp., and are 
first adduced in ver. 41 as a third analogue, and that simply in reference to 
their manifold défa. The whole connection requires that couara should be 
bodies as actual organs of life, not inorganic things and materials ; as, for 
instance, stones (Lucian, vitt. auct. 25), water (Stob. jl. app. ii. 3), and 


1Comp. also Kurtz, Bibel u. Astron. p. ing that cop. érovp. denotes the pious, and 
157; Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 72 f. com, ériyera the godless, in spite of the doga 
2Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. which is attributed to-both. 
also Theodoret) go entirely astray, suppos- 


376 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


material things generally (Plato, Polit. p. 288 D) are designated in Greck 
writers—not, however, in the New Testament—by caua. Had Paul meant 
heavenly bodies in the modern sense, he would in that case, by describing 
them as bodies, have committed a werdBaoic ele dAdo yévoc ; Whereas, on the 
contrary, the bodies of the angels, especially when we consider the similar- 
ity of those who are raised up to the angels, which was taught by Jesus Him- 
self, were essentially included as relevant to the subjectin the list of the 
diversities of bodily organization here enumerated (in opposition to Hof- 
mann’s objection). He then, ver. 41, brings forward in addition the heav- 
enly bodies only in respect of the diversity—not of their bodies, but—of the 
lustre of their light. — cdpuara ériyera| bodies to be found on earth, that is, the 
bodies of men and beasts. — Both kinds of bodies, the heavenly and earthly, 
are of different sorts of peculiar glory,—the former encompassed with a 
heavenly radiancy (Matt. xxviii. 3 ; Acts xii. 7, al.), the latter manifesting 
strength, grace, beauty, skilful construction, and the like in their outward 
appearance. Notice that in ver. 40 érépa is used, because the subjects are 
of specifically different kinds and qualities. It is otherwise in ver. 41, 
comp. ver. 39. — Ver. 41. Sun-lustre is one thing, and moon-lustre another, 
and lustre of stars another (i.e. another than solar and lunar lustre). Paul uses, 
however, dorépwv, not dorépoc, because the stars too among themselves have 
not one and the same lustre ; hence he adds by way of explanation : for 
star differs from star in lustre. Avadépec is thus simply differt (Vulgate), 
not eacellit (Matt. vi. 26, x. 31, xil. 12), which the context does not sug- 
gest. Regarding év with dagépe, comp. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 568 A ; Dem. 
291, 17; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 169. The accusative or dative of more pre- 
cise definition is more usual (Lobeck, ed Phryn. p. 394). The design of 
ver. 4 is not to allude to the different degrees of glory of the bodies of the 
saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Calovius, Estius, al.), which is 
neither indicated in what precedes nor adverted to in the application ver. 
42 ff., and hence has no foundation in the context ; but Calvin rightly 
remarks: ‘‘ Non disputat, qualis futura sit conditionis differentia inter 
sanctos post resurrectionem, sed quid nunc differant corpora nostra ab iis, 
quae olim recipiemus . . . ac si diceret : nihil in resurrectione futurum 
doceo, quod non subjectum sit jam omnium oculis.” Comp. also Krauss. 
—Generally, let us beware of forcing upon the individual points in vy. 
39-41 different individual references also,’ contrary to the application which 
the apostle himself makes in vv. 42-44. 

Vv. 42-44. Application of the passage from ver. 36 (o7eiperar) on to ver. 
41. —oiTw cai 7 avaotaore T. vexp.| sc. éott. So does it hold also with the res- 
urrection of the dead, in so far, namely, as the resurrection-body will be quite 
otherwise constituted than the present body.’—J¢ is sown in corruption, etc. 


1 Tertullian, de resurr. 52, may serve as a Christi ; alia lunae, é.é. ecclesiae ; et alia stel- 
warning; he says on ver. 39: “‘Alia caro _—larum, 7.é. seminis Abrahae.” 


hominis, 7.e. servi Det; alia jumenti, 7.e. 2Tt is to be observed that Paul, in his 
ethnic ; alia volucrum, i.e. martyrum ; alia whole discussion regarding the nature of 
piscium, i.e. guibus aqua baptismatis sufficit.”” the future bodies, has in view only those of 


On ver. 41, again: ‘‘alia solis gloria, i.e. the first resurrection (see on ver. 23), leav- 





CHAP. Xv., 42-44. av? 


What is sown and raised up, is self-evident, and is also distinctly said in 
ver. 44, on occasion being given by the adjectival form of expression, into 
which the discourse there passes. — On omeipera, the remark of Grotius is 
sufficient : ‘‘cum posset dicere sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis in- 
sisteret similitudini supra sumtae de grano.” The apostle falls back on the 
image of the matter already familiar to the readers, because it must have 
by this time become clear to them in general from this image, that a repro- 
duction of the present body at the resurrection was not to be thought of. 
The fact, again, that the image of sowing had already gone before in this 
sense,—in the sense of interment,—excludes as contrary to the text, not 
only van Hengel’s interpretation, according to which ove/pera: is held to 
apply to generation and man is to be conceived as the subject, but also Hof- 
mann’s view, that the sowing is the giving up of the body to death, without 
‘reference to the point whether it be laid in the earth or not. The sowing 
is man’s act, but the éyeiperac God’s act, quite corresponding to the antithe- 
sis of ot, ver. 36, and 6 dé Oedc, ver. 38. — év gOopa] in corruption, i.e. in the 
condition of decay, is the body when itis buried.’ Of a wholly different 
nature, however, will be the new body which raises itself at the resurrec- 
tion-summons (ver. 52 f.) out of the buried one (as the plant out of the seed- 
corn) ; it is raised in the condition of incorruptibility. Comp. vv. 50, 52. — 
év atuuia| in the condition of dishonour. Chrysostom (ri yap eideyGéorepov 
vexpov dvappvévroc ;), Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, al., 
including Billroth, have rightly understood this of the foeditas cadaveris ; 
for oreipera: represents the act of burial. Erasmus, Calvin, Vorstius, Esti- 
us, Rosenmiiller, a/., including Flatt, (comp. Riickert), hold that it refers 
to the ante mortem miseriis et foeditatibus obnoxium esse,” Estius. So also 
de Wette (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) in reference to ail the three points, 
which, according to these expositors, are meant to designate the nature of 
the living body as regards its organization, or at least to include it (comp. 
Maier) in their scope. But this mode of conception, according to which 
the definition of state characterizes the earthly body generally according to 
its nature, not specially according to the condition in which it is at its in- 
terment, comes in only at the fourth point with cua Wvyixdv in virtue of the 
change in the form of expression which’is adopted on that very account. 
From the way in which Paul has expressed the first three points, he desires 
to state in what condition that which is being sown is at its sowing ; in 
what condition, therefore, the body to be buried is, when it is being buried. 
This, too, in opposition to Ewald’s view : ‘‘even the best Christians move 
now in corruption, in outward dishonour before the world,” etc. — év d6&y] re- 
fers to the state of outward glory, which will be peculiar to the resurrection- 
bodies ; ver. 40. It is the cipuuoppov eivar tH cparte tie JdEn¢ Xpiorov, Phil. 





ing quite out of account the bodies of those resurrection-hope was being assailed. , 
who shall belong to the second resurrec- 1 Not as Hofmann would have it, in con- 
tion, and consequently to the réAos, ver. 24. nection with his inappropriate interpreta- 
He has in fact to do with believers, with tion of omeiperar: up to the point, when ut is 
' future sharers in the resurrection of the given over to death. 

righteous (comp. on Phil. iii. 11), whose 


378 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ii. 21. — év doeveia] not: ‘‘ variis morbis et periculis obnoxium,” Rosen- 
miiller and others, comp. Riickert (weakliness) ; for it refers to the already 
dead body (oreiperac), but : in the condition of powerlessness, inasmuch as all 
ability, all icyvic¢ (Soph. Oed. Col. 616) all ofévoc of the limbs (Pindar, Wem. 
vy. 72, x. 90) has vanished from the dead body. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, al., narrow the reference too much in an arbitrary 
way, applying it simply to the inability to withstand corruption. Ev do@. is 
not a superfluous (de Wette), but a characteristic mark which specifically 
distinguishes the dead from the living body. — év dvvduer| in the condition 
of strength: the resurrection body will be endowed with fulness of strength 
for life and activity. What Grotius adds: ‘‘cum sensibus multis, quos 
nunc non intelligimus,” is perhaps true in itself, but is not conveyed in év 
dvrauec. — Instead of adducing one by one further qualities of the body as 
buried, with their opposites in the resurrection-body, Paul sums up by 
naming in addition that which conditions those other qualities, the specijic 
Sundamental nature of the present body which is buried, and of the future 
one which is raised : ozeiperat cdua wuycxor, éyelp. o. mvevuatixdy, t.e. there 78 
sown a psychical body, etc. This is not opposed to the identity of the body, 
but the one which rises is quite differently qualified ; there is buried a wyixdr, 
there rises a rvevwatuxéy. That is the new rodty¢ tod cOpatoc in which the 
risen man comes (ver. 35); but the expression, which sets forth the differ- 
ence as two subjects, is stronger and more significant than if we should 
take it with Hofmann : 7¢ is sown as a psychical body, etc. —The body which 
is buried is wuyiedv, Inasmuch as the wuyh, this power of the sensuous and 
perishable life (comp. on ii. 14), was its life-principle and the determining 
element of its whole nature (consisting of flesh and blood, ver. 50). The 
wvy7 had in it, as Oecumenius and Theophylact say, 7d kipoc x. THY Hyeuoviar. 
The resurrection-body, however, will be rvevmarixdy, 7.e. not an ethereal 
body (Origen, comp. Chrysostom),! which the antithesis of ywyidv forbids; 
but a spiritual body, inasmuch as the rvetiya, the power of the supersensu- 
ous, eternal life (the true, imperishable (07), in which the Holy Spirit 
carries on the work of regeneration and sanctification (Rom. viii. 16, 17), 
will be its life-principle and the determining element of its whole nature. 
In the earthly body the woy7, not the rveiya, is that which conditions its 
constitution and its qualities, so that it is framed as the organ of the pvy4; ? 
in the resurrection-body the reverse is the case ; the rvevua, for whose life- 
activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature, and the yuyf has 
ceased to be, as formerly, the ruling and determining element. We are 
not, however, on this account to assume, with Riickert, that Paul conceived 
the soul as not continuing to subsist for ever,—a conception which would 
do away with the essential completeness and thereby with the identity of 
the human being. On the contrary, he has conceived of the zvetua in the 


1 Or as Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 2 Luther’s gloss is: ‘‘ which eats, drinks, 
297, would have it: ‘‘a@ body composed of _ sleeps, digests, grows larger and smaller, 
spirit,” the mvedua being conceived as ma- begets children, etc. Spiritual, which may 
terial. Comp. Holsten, zum Ho. d. Paul. u. do none of these things, and nevertheless 
Petr. p. 72: ‘* out of heavenly light-material.”’ _is a true body alive from the spirit.” 





ei _ ~e ry © aes 4 
= ——s 
ad ‘ 
‘ 


OMAP, XVi; 1:45; 379 


risen bodies as the absolutely dominant element, to which the psychical 
powers and activities shall be completely subordinated. The entire predi- 
cates of the resurrection-body, contrasted with the properties of the present 
body, are united in the likeness to the angels, which Jesus affirms of the risen, 
Matt. xxii. 30, Luke xx. 36, and in their being fashioned like unto the 
glorified body of Christ, as is promised by Paul, vv. 48, 49; Phil. ili. 21. 
How far the doctrine of Paul is exalted above the assertion by the Rabbins 
of the (quite crass) identity of the resurrection-body with the present one, 
may be seen from the citations in Wetstein on ver. 36, and in Eisenmenger, 
entdeckt. Judenth, Il. p. 938 f.— «i gore cOua woy., gore kad x.t.A.] logical 
confirmation of the céua rvevuar. just mentioned. It is to be shown, name- 
ly, that it is not an air-drawn fancy to speak of the future existence of a 
caua rvevuatixoy : If it is true that there is a psychical body, then there is also a 
spiritual body, then such a body cannot be a non-ens—according to the mu- 
tually conditioning relations of the antitheses. The emphasis les on the 
twice-prefixed éor., exvistit (comp. the Rabbinical 8 in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 
670). The logical correctness of the sentence, again, depends upon the pre- 
supposition (ver. 42 f.) that the present and the future body stand in the 
relation of counterparts to each other. If, therefore, there exists a psychical 
body (and that is the present one), then a pneumatic body also must be no 
mere idea, but really existent (and that is the resurrection-body). 

Ver. 45. Scriptural confirmation for the ei gor: cua wp. K.7.4. — btw] 80, 1.€: 
in this sense, corresponding to what has been said above, it stands written 
also, etc. The passage is from Gen. ii. 7 according to the LXX. (x. éyévero 
6 avip. eic . ¢.), but with the addition of the more precisely explanatory ~ 
words zpé@roc and ’Adau. The citation extends only to Cécav ; the 6 écyaroc 
x.t.A. that follow are words of the apostle, in which he gives an explanation 
of his oirw by calling attention, namely, to the opposite nature of the last 
Adam, as that to which the Scripture likewise pointed by its description 
of the jirst Adam, in virtue of the typical relation of Adam to Christ. He 
joins on these words of his own, however, immediately to the passage of 
Scripture, in order to indicate that the 6 éoyaroc. . . Cworototv follows as 
necessarily from it according to its typical reference, as if the words had 
been expressed along with it.' He thus gives expression to the inference 
which is tacitly contained in the statement, by adding forthwith this self- 
evident conclusion as if belonging also to the passage of Scripture, because 
demanded for it by the inner necessity of the antithesis. When others, such 
as Billroth and Riickert, assume that 6 éoyaro¢ x.7.A. is meant really to be a 
part of the Scripture-quotation, they in that case charge the apostle with 
having made the half of the citation himself and given it out as being Bible 
words ; but assuredly no instance is to be found of such an arbitrary proced- 
ure, however freely he handles passagés from the Old Testament elsewhere. 
And would the readers, seeing that.éyévero. . . Ccav is such a universally 
known statement, have been able to recognize in 6 éoyaroc «.t.4. Bible words ? 

1 To make the relation of the two halves at Gocav, and let then 6 écxatos x.7.A. follow 


discernible in reading, let éyéveto. . . Gaoav a little less slowly and loudly. 
be read slowly and loud, pause markedly 


380 . PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


According to Hofmann, otro xai yéyp. is a completed sentence, which only 
states that the distinction between two kinds of human body is scriptural. 
In order to demonstrate this scripturalness the apostle then applies the pas- 
sage Gen. ii. 7. But against this it may be urged, jirst, that Paul is wont 
in general to use the yéyparra: for citing passages of Scripture ; secondly, 
that the reader could ail the less think here of another use of the word, since 
in reality at the moment a passage of Scripture, and that a universally fa- 
miliar one, is joined on directly, and without a particle (such as yap) to lead 
the thoughts aright in another direction. — éyévero] by his creation, by means 
of the animation through God’s breath. — cic wuyqv Cécav] TH wa), comp. 
Gen. 1. 380, unto a living soul-nature, so that thus the body of Adam must be 
formed as the receptacle and organ of the wvyf, must be a caua woyixdr.? 
Therewith sin itself is not assumed as yet, nor even the necessity of its fu- 
ture entrance (comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 133), but the suscepti- 
bility for it, which, however, did not fall within the scope of the apostle 
here. — 6 écyatoc ’Addu] is Christ. Comp. ver. 22; Rom. v. 14; Neve 
Schalom, ix. 9: ‘‘ Adamus postremus ({)118i1) est Messias.” He is called, 
however, and is the last Adam in reference to the first Adam, whose antitype 
He is as the head and the beginner of the new humanity justified and re- 
deemed through Him ; but at the same time in reference also to the fact, 
that after Him no other is to follow with an Adamite vocation. Apart from 
this latter reference, He may be called also the second Adam. Comp. ver. 
47, — lic rvevtpua Cwora.| unto a life-gwing spirit-being, sc. éyévero. It isthereby 
expressed that the body of Christ became a cdma rvevuatixév. But what is 
the point of time, at which Christ sic rvetpa Cwor. éyévero ? Not as a created 
being, as one of the heavenly forms in the divine retinue before His mission 
(Holsten), nor yet in His incarnation,? whether we may supply mentally a 
Deitate (Beza, comp. too Ritbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 85 ; Baur, Delitzsch, 
al.), or take refuge in the communicatio hypostatica (Calovius and others) ; 
for during his earthly life Christ had a wuyiKdv cdua (only without sin, Rom. 
viii. 3) which ate, drank, slept, consisted of flesh and blood, suffered, died, 
etc. The one correct answer in accordance with the context, since the point 
in hand has regard to the resurrection (and see especially ver. 44), can only 
be : after His death (comp. Hellwag in the Ziibing. theol. Jahrb. 1848, 2, p. 
240 ; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, II. p. 122 ff. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 314), and 
indeed through His resurrection, Christ became ei¢ rveipua wor. The body, 
doubtless, of the Risen One before His ascension (hence the Socinians think 
here of the latter event ; so, too, J. Miitler and Maier) consisted still of flesh 
and blood, still ate, drank, etc. ; but it was immortal, and so changed (see 
Remark appended to Luke xxiv. 51) that it already appears as rvevuarixdv, 
although it was only at the ascension that it entered upon its completion in 
that respect, and consequently into its déga as the cama tHe ddEn¢ (Phil. iil. 
21). The event producing the change, therefore, is the resurrection ; in 
virtue of this, the last Adam, who shall appear only at the Parousia in the 


1 Not as if he had lacked the higher life- body. ‘ 
principle (the mwvedua); but the Wwvxy was 2 So, too, Sellin in the Luther. Zeitschr. 
that which determined the nature of the 1867, p. 231. 


Se ne 
* 


| CHAP. XV., 46, 47. 381 
whole efficiency of His life-power (ver. 47), became (éyévero) ei¢ rveiua Cworooir,' 
and that through God, who raised Him up. —lworooiv] ovk eirev’ cig rvedua 
Cv, GAAA Cwororovy 76 peifov eixov, Theophylact. The connection shows what 
Co# ismeant in Cworoovv, namely, the resurrection-life, which Christ, who has 
become zveiya Cwor., works at His Parousia. Comp. ver. 22 ; Phil. iii. 21; 
Col, iii. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 16; John v. 21 ff. This limitation of the reference 
of fworoovv, made in accordance with the context, shows that we have not 
here an argument proving too much (in opposition to Baur, newt. Theol. p. 197). 

Ver. 46. After it has been stated and confirmed from Scripture in vv. 44, 
45 that there exists not simply a psychical, but also a spiritual body, it is now 
further shown that the latter cannot precede the former, but that the reverse 
must be the case. ‘‘ Nevertheless the pneumatic is not first, but the psychical ; 
afterwards the pneumatic.” We are not, with the majority of the older com- 
mentators (also Flatt, Osiander, Hofmann), to supply céua (which the 
context does not even suggest) ; but Paul states quite generally the law of 
development,’ that the pneumatic appears later than the psychical, a grada- 
tion from lower to higher forms, which goes through the whole creation. 
This general statement he then proves : 

Ver. 47, by the concrete phenomena of the two heads of the race of 
mankind, Adam and Christ. — The principal emphasis is upon zpdro¢ and 
debrepoc, SO that the former corresponds to the mpérov, and the latter to the 
éxerta Of ver. 46 ; hence, too, éoyvato¢c is not used here again. ‘‘ The jirst 
man (not the second) is of earthly origin, earthy (consisting of earth-mate- 
rial); the second man (not the first) is of heavenly origin.” — é« ye yoixdc] 
Origin and material nature. Comp. Gen. ii. 7, yotv AaBov ard rie yg 3 
Eccles. ii. 20, xii. 7 ; 1 Macc. ii. 68. That the article (John iii. 31) was 
not required with yf (in opposition to van Hengel, who, on account of the 
lacking article, explains it, terrenus sc. terram sapiens; and then yoikdéc ; 
humilia spirans) is clear not only in general (see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 149]), 
but also from passages such as Wisd. xv. 8, xvii. 1 ; Eccles. xxxvi. 10, xl. 
11. It may be added, that since, by the words é« y#ec yoixdc, Adam’s body is 
characterized as woycxdv cGua, as in ver. 45, and the psychical corporeity, 
again, taken purely in itself (without the intervention of a modifying rela- 
tion), includes mortality (ver. 44), it is clear that Paul regards Adam as cre- 
ated mortal, but so that he would have become immortal, and would have con- 
tinued free from death, if he had not sinned. The protoplasts are accord- 
ingly in his eyes such as under an assumed condition potuerunt non mori, 
which, however, through the non-fulfilment of this condition, ¢.e. through 
the Fall, came to nothing ; so that now death, and that as a penalty, came 


1 There exists no ground for assuming 
that Paul had a different conception of the 
coporeity of the risen Christ before His res- 
urrection from that held by the evange- 
lists. It is true that Paul mentions the ap- 
pearances of the Risen One, ver. 5 ff., in 
such a way that he speaks of the appear- 
ance after the ascension, ver. 8, no other- 
wise than of those which preceded it. But 


he had there no ground for drawing any 
such distinction, since it only concerned 
him generally to enumerate the appear- 
ances of the ~isen One, while for his pur- 
pose it was all the same which of them had 
taken place before and which after the as- 
cension. 
2 See also Ernesti, Joc. cit. p. 126. 


382 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

to be a reality,—a view which agrees alike with his own doctrinal statement, 
Rom. v. 12,1 and also with Genesis. For had the protoplasts not sinned, 
they would, according to Genesis, have remained in Paradise, and would 
have become immortal (Gen. iil. 22) through the enjoyment of the tree of 
life (Gen. ii. 9), which God had nat forbidden to them (Gen. ii. 16,17). But 
they were driven out of Paradise, before they had yet eaten of this tree 
(Gen. ili, 22); and so, certainly, according to Genesis also, through sin 
came death into the world as the penalty appointed for them by God (ii. 17). 
Comp. Augustin, De pece. meritis et remiss. i. 5: ‘‘ipsam mortale non est 
factum mortuum nisi propter peccatum ;” see, too, Ernesti, l.c. p. 248 f.; 
Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 158 f. —-é oipavoi| ef heavenly derivation. This ap- 
plies to the glorification of the body of Christ,’ originating from heaven, 7.e. 
wrought by God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 2), in which glorified body He is in 
heaven, and will appear at His Parousia (comp. Phil. ili. 20). Comp. on 
ver. 45. According to de Wette (comp. also Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Ayrit. 
1860, p. 487 f., and Christol. pp. 228, 242), it applies to the whole personality 
of Jesus, ‘‘ which, through its preponderating spirituality, has also a spirit- 
ual body,” or to the heavenly origin characterizing the nature of the 
whole person (Beyschlag). But the above-given definite reference is the 
only one which corresponds, in accordance with the text, to the contrast of 
éx ype yoixéc, Which applies to the formation of Adam’s body, as well as to the 
whole point of the development (céua rvevwatixév). Van Hengel is wrong 
in seeking to conclude from the absence of the article here also, that the 
heavenly dignity of Jesus is meant. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 2; Gal. i. 8. Paul 
has the article before oipavéce or ovpavoi after éx or axé6, only in 1 Thess. i. 10. 
—WNo predicate in the second clause corresponds to the yoixée of the first 
half of the verse,* because the material of the glorified body of Christ tran- 
scends alike conception and expression. 

Ver. 48. Application to our present and fuedee bodily nature. We are to 
supply simply éori and eici. — 6 yoixdc] Adam. —oi yoixoi] all Adam’s poster- 
ity, as such, in so far as they have the same material nature with their first 
father. This common nature is the psychical corporeity. — 6 érovpdvioc] He 
who is in heaven (comp. the frequent érovpdvoe Gcot In Homer ; Matt. xviii. 


éé otpavod back to the incarnation, which is 
contrary to the context, mixes up things 
that. differ. Beyschlag (comp. also his 


1Jn’* connection with this, no difficulty 
whatever is occasioned by the é¢’ & mavtes 


nuaptov, Rom. v. 12, according to its correct 


interpretation, which does not make it re- 
fer to the individual sins of the posterity ; 
see on Rom. /.c. The Pelagian view, that 
Adam,evenif he had not sinned, would have 
died, is decidedly against the Pauline doc- 
trinal conception. This in opposition to 
Schleiermacher, Neander, and others; es- 
pecially, also, against Mau, v. Tode, d. Solde 
der Stinde, 1841. 

2 Hence Gess (v. d. Person Chr. p. V5) very 
irrelevantly objects to the reference to the 
body of Christ, that that body was not 
from heaven, but from the seed of David. 
Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 334 ff.), by referring 


Christol. p. 226) finds in our text a heavenly 
humanity of Christ (human pre-existence) ; 
but the connection and the contrast lead 
us only to the heaven-derived body of the 
risen and exalted One. Comp., too, Hof- 
mann and J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, p. 412, ed. 
5; Weiss, 0701. Theol. p. 815 f. 

3 Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 836, prefers the 
Marcionitic reading: 0 devtepos kup. €& ovp., 
i.e. the second is Lord from heaven. Accord- 
ing to the critical evidence, this reading 
deserves no consideration. Offence was 
taken at av@pwros. 


: 
3 
| 
: 
7 





CHAP. Xv.; 49. 383 


85; Phil. ii. 10 ; 2 Macc. iii. 39 ; see also on ver. 40), z.¢. Christ ; not, 
however, as the heavenly archetype of humanity, as which He was pre-exist- 
ent in God (Beyschlag), but as the exalted to heaven, Phil. ii. 9 ; Eph. iv. 8 
ff. — oi éxovpdvior| These are the risen Christians, inasmuch as they shall be 
citizens of the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20 ; Heb. xii. 22; 2 Tim. 


iv. 18. The common nature of the érovpdvio¢ and the érovpdwoi is the pneu- 


matic body. Comp. Phil. iii. 21. Instead of referring the twofold resem- 
blance in kind to the nature of the body, Hofmann makes it refer to the 
nature of the ldife,—on the one side, sinfulness and nothingness ; on the 
other side, holiness and glory. But the matter is thus turned to its ethical 
side, which Paul cannot have in view here in accordance with the whole 
connection, which has to do only with the twofold bodily condition—that 
belonging to the first, and that to the last Adam. This also in opposition to 
van Hengel. 

’ Ver. 49. The Recepta dopécouev is to be retained (see the critical remarks), 
for which van Hengel, too, decides, although taking +. eixéva in the moral 
sense. (A*) An exhortation (dopécwuev, defended by Hofmann) lies all the more 
remote from the connection, seeing that Paul proceeds in his development 
of the subject with «a/, and itis certainly not the ethical, but the physical 
conception of eixév which is prepared for by what precedes (see still rovovror, 
ver. 48); also in what follows, ver. 50, it is not an ethical, but a physiological 
relation which is expressed. Beza says well, in opposition to the reading 
dopéowpev and its interpretation : ‘‘ Hoc plane est detortum, quum res ipsa 
clamet, Paulum in proposito argumento pergere.” What, namely, was al- 
ready contained in ver, 48, he now expresses in a yet more definite and con- 
crete way (hence, too, passing over into the first person), bringing out with 
much emphasis the full meaning of the weighty statement, thus: And as 
we have borne (before the Parousia) the image of the earthly (of Adam),—i.e. 
the psychical body which makes us appear as like in kind to Adam,—so 
shall we (after the Parousia) bear also the image of the heavenly (of Christ), 2.¢. 
the pneumatic body. Paul transfers himself and his readers to the turning- 
point of the Parousia, from which the aorist dates backward in the aiav 
ovroc, and the future forward in the aiav uéAAwv. — To extend the ‘‘ we” to 
all men (Krauss) is forbidden by the whole context, and would presuppose 
the idea of the dzoxardoracwe rdvrov. — Regarding ¢opeiv, the continuous 
déperv, see on Rom. xiii. 4. 


Remarx.—Adopting the reading gopéowyev, we should not, with Bengel, im- 
port the idea of a promise, but take it as hortative, with Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, al., including Hofmann, so that eikév would need to be under- 
stood ethically. Eixéva 0& yoikov Tac davAacg mpadéec¢ Aéyer’ eixova dé TOV 
érovpaviov tac ayabac, Theophylact. In connection with this Hofmann takes 
Kafe¢ argumentatively (comp. on Phil. i. 7, ii. 12): ‘‘ seeing that we have borne 

. SO must we now also be willing to bear. . .’’ But that xaQdc is the ordi- 
nary as of comparison, is shown by the two comparative clauses in ver. 48, and 
by the annexing of the x«afdéc¢ to them by the simple «ai, which continues the 
comparison in the way of assertion. Moreover, dopéowuev would, in fact, not 
mean, ‘‘ we must be willing to bear,’’ but, ‘* Let us bear.”’ 


384 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 50. The discussion regarding the nature of the resurrection-body is 
now closed with a negative axiom, which serves to confirm the gopécomer rT. 
eix. tT. exoup.: But this (in order to add yet this general statement in con- 
firmation of what has just been said) J assure you of. Comp. vil. 29. The 
sense of a concession (for the spiritualistic opponents, so Usteri, Billroth, — 
Olshausen) is imported into the context and the simple ¢7ui. According to 
van Hengel, Paul writes to obviate a misapprehension ; his readers were not 
to think that the @opécouev x. T. eixéva Tov éxovpaviov consisted in the fellow- 
ship of the flesh and blood, which Christ had before and after His resurrec- 
tion. But there was no occasion presented for such an opinion, since the 
Christian belief was assured that the heavenly Christ has a glorified body 
(Phil. iii. 21). Hofmann (following Beza) refers roiro to what precedes, and 
takes ér: as introducing the ground, why the apostle has uttered vv. 46-49. 
But this ground is of a positive nature, and does not lie in the merely 
negative thought ver. 50, but much deeper, namely, in the Scriptural (ver. 
45) relation of the bodily condition of the earthly and of the heavenly 
Adam. — capé x. aiwa} i.e. the bodily nature which we have in this temporal 
life, the chief constituents of which are flesh and blood,’ the latter as the 
seat of life. Tiv Ovytiy dbow xadei’ adbvatov 6&8 tabryv éte OvyTiyv obcay THC 
érovpaviov Bactreiag tuyeiv, Theodoret. Comp. vi. 13. %. x. aiwa is just as 
little to be taken in the ethical sense, which capé by itself elsewhere has, as 
is ¢Aopa afterwards (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theophylact, al.) — oidé] 
and not, still dependent upon é7. _ This second half of the verse forms with 
the first a parallelism, in which the first clause names the concrete mat- 
ters, and the second one the general class (the categories in question), to 
which the former belong. The ¢#opd, 7.e. according to the context (comp. 
ver. 42), the corruption (and to this category flesh and blood belong, 
which fall a prey to corruption), inherits not the incorruptibility, to the 
realm of which belong the relations of the Messianic kingdom, and in 
particular the glorified body of the sharers in the kingdom. The abstract 
nouns instead of 1d ¢faprév and 7d ad%aprov have a certain solemnity. 
Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. p. 476: ‘‘ Sublimitatem et 7d0¢ adjuvant abstracta 
sic posita pro concretis.” Regarding x2ypovou. of the entrance upon the 
Messianic possession, comp. vi. 9; Gal. ili. 29. The present sets what is 
sure and certain before us as present. 

Ver. 51. After Paul has with the weighty axiom in ver. 50 disposed of 
the question ro/m 6? céuare épyovrat, which he has been discussing since ver. 
35, anew point, which has likewise a right withal not to be left untouched 


1 According to Tischendorf and Ewald, est corpus, non omne corpus est caro.” In 
ver. 50 begins already the new section, and harmony with our passage we should have 
would thus be the introduction to it. Like- to read in the third article [of the ‘‘ Apos- 
wise suitable; still at vii. 29 also rovro 6€  tles’ Creed ’’] ‘‘ resurrection of the body,” 
oynet serves to confirm what has preceded it. instead of “resurrection of the flesh.” The 

2 Tt is not tothe body as such that partici- conception “ glorified flesh” is for the apos- 
pation in the Messianic kingdom is denied, tle a contradictio in adjecto, which cannot 
but to the present body consisting of flesh even be justified from his doctrine of the 
and blood. Jerome says well: ‘alia car- Lord’s Supper. 
nis, alia corporis definitio est; omnis caro 


~ 


CHAP. XV., dl. 385 


in this connection, however mysterious it is, now presents itself for eluci- 
dation, namely, what shall happen in the case of those who shall be yet alive at 
the Parousia. This last, as it were, appended part of his discussion begins 
without transition in a direct and lively way (idot), designated too as puo- 


 thowov, as dogma reconditium, the knowledge of which Paul is conscious that 


he possesses by aroxdavyic.' See on Rom, xi. 25. — rdvte¢ wav od kor. K.7.A. | 
is held by the commentators to mean : we shall indeed not all die, but all shall 
be changed. 'They either assume a transposition of the negation (so the ma- 
jority of the older expositors, following Chrysostom, also Heydenreich, 
Flatt, Osiander, Reiche, and van Hengel); or they hold that Paul had 
aAAay., upon which all the emphasis lies, already in his mind in connection 
with the first ravtec : ‘‘ We all—shall not indeed die until then, but notwith- 
standing—all shall be changed,” Billroth, whom Olshausen, de Wette, Maier, 
follow ; or (so Riickert) the meaning is : die indeed we shall not all, etc., so 
that, according to this view, in pure Greek it would be said : kocuyfyodueba 
mavrec uev ov.2 Three makeshifts, contrary to the construction, and without 
proof or precedent, in order to bring out a meaning assumed beforehand to 
be necessary, but which is incorrect, for Paul after ver. 52 can only have 
applied aAraynoducba to those still living at the Parousia, and not, as according 
to that assumed meaning must be the case, to those already dead. The 
result of this is, at the same time, that the subject of ot cow. and aAzay. must 
be Paul himself, and the whole of those who, like him, shall yet witness the Pa- 
rousia (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 17: qweic of COvrec), as could not but be clear to 
the reader from aAAay. Hence we must interpret strictly according to the 
order of the words: we shall indeed all not sleep (¢.e. shall not have to go 
through the experience of dying at the Parousia, in order to become sharers 
in the resurrection-body, but shall remain alive then), but shall, doubtless, 
all be changed.* Regarding the subject-matter, comp. ver. 53; 1 Thess. 
iv. 15,17. This interpretation alone, according to which ov, in conformity 
with the quite ordinary use of it (comp. immediately ov divara, ver. 50), 
changes the conception of the word before which it stands into its opposite 
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), is not merely verbally correct, but also in 
keeping with the character of a pvorfpiov ; while, according to the usual 
way of taking it, the first half at least contains nothing at all mysterious, 
but something superfluous and self-evident. Our interpretation is adopted 
and defended by Winer since his fifth edition (p. 517, ed. 7 [E. T. 695)), 





1 Not ‘‘a half confession that now there 
comes a private opinion”’ (Krauss, p. 169), 
which he only with reluctance gives to the 
public. Comp. also, as against this view, 1 
Thess. iv. 15: év Adyw kvpiov. 

2 Comp. Hofmann’s earlier interpretation 
(in the Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 654): ‘* Collec- 
tively we shall not sleep, but we shall be 
changed collectively.”’ Now (heil. Schr. d. 
NV. 7.) the same writer follows Lachmann’s 
reading, which, however, he punctuates 
thus: wdvres mév KotunOyoducda ov, mavres 5é 
adday , Whereby, on the one hand, the uni- 


* 


versality of the dying is denied, whereas on 
the other the universality of the change is 
affirmed. Against this interpretation, apart 
from the critical objections, it may be 
urged, as regards the sense, that aAdAay. can- 
not be predicated of the dead along with 
the rest (see ver. 52), and as regards linguis- 
tic usage again, that to place the ov after 
the conceptions negatived by it (Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 307 f.) is foreign throughout to the 
New Testament, often as there was oppor- 
tunity for placing it so. 
3 cis apOapoiay petanecety, Chrysostom. 


386 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


comp. Ewald and Kling ;* but it is contested by Fritzsche, de conform. 
Lachm. p. 383 Reiche, commentar. crit.; de Wette, van Hengel, Hofmann, 
Hoelemann, neue Bibelstud. p. 276 ff., who, it may be added, looks upon 
the passage as regards text and interpretation as a ‘‘still uncertain” one, 
but decidedly denies that there is here or in 1 Thess. iv. an expectation of 
the Parousia as nigh at hand. The objections raised against our view are 
insufficient ; for (@) something absurd would result from it only on the 
supposition of the subject being all Christians or Paul and all his read- 
ers; (6) to make rdvrec refer to the whole category of those among whom 
Paul reckoned himself, that is, to all who should still live to see the Parousia, 
of whom the apostle says that they shall not attain to the new body by the 
path of death, is not only not inadmissible, but is established in accordance 
with the context by the predicate aAiayno., which does not include the 
process of the resurrection (ver. 52); (¢) the LXX. Num. xxiii. 13 cannot be 
used to support the reference of oi to rdvrec, for in the words of that pas- 
sage : mavrac dé ov uy idnc, the well-known use of ov uf testifies Irrefragably in 
favour of the connection of the negation, not with rdavtac, but directly with. 
the verb. Equally unavailable is the LXX. Josh. xi. 18, where by récac 
Tac TOdELC TAG KEYwpaTiouévac oiK évérrpyoev It is declared of the whole of the 
hill-cities that Israei left them unburnt, so that the negation thus belongs 
to the verb alongside of which it stands. In Eccles. xvii. 30 also the words 
ov dbvatae (it is impossible) belong to each other ; in John ili. 16, vi. 29, 
again, the mode of expression is quite of another kind (in opposition to 
Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 106 [E. T. 121]). In our text the repetition of rdvre¢ 
ought to have sufficed of itself to prevent misapprehension of the plain 
meaning : all we shall at the return of the Lord, in order to our entering 
glorified into His kingdom, not need first to fall asleep, but shall all be 
changed living (ver. 52), so that our puyixdv cOua shall become a rvevmarexév. 
(B°) | 
Ver. 52. Ev aréuw, év pirg 000.) A double, because a thoroughly designed 
and extremely exact description of the suddenness of the aAaayyo., which is 
meant wholly to exclude even the possibility of those still alive having 
first, perhaps, to die at the Parousia, in order to come into the resurrection- 
life. — drouov, what is indivisible, an atom (Plato, Soph. p. 229 D), is here 
a little indivisible point of time. év aréum' év pirfuatt, Hesychius. Comp. 
the phrase, current in Greek writers, év dxapet (Lucian, As. 37; Alciphron. 


ili. 25).—év tH toy. odAmyy:] at the last trumpet, while it is sounded 
(by anarchangel). See Winer, p. 361[E. T. 482]. Comp. év aiAoic, Pindar, 
Ol. v. 45. Paul might also have written: dd... odAmyyoc, Polyb. iv. 


13. 1. Regarding the subject-matter, comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16, and Liinemann 
and Ewald on that passage. The last trumpet is that sounding at the 
Jinal moment of this.age of the world. It does not conflict with this state- 
ment, if we suppose that Paul conceived the second resurrection also (ver. 
24) to take place with trumpet-sound, for éoy. has its temporal reference 
in aidyv oitoc. De Wette (so, too, in the form of a suggestion, Vatablus ; 


1 Comp. also Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 565. 


"a 


” os, sig weit 


—— ss 


= 


CHAP. XV., 52. 387 


and comp. previously, Theodoret of Mopsuestia) thinks of the last among 
several trumpet-signals, against which, however, is the simple, not more 
precisely defined cadrice: yap which follows. This, too, in opposition to 
Osiander, van Hengel, Maier, and Hofmann. To understand, with Ols- 
hausen, who follows older expositors (rwéc even already in Theophylact), 
the seventh trumpet, Rev. viii. 9, with which, along with the trumpets of 
Jericho, Hofmann also compares it, is to place it on the same level with 
the visions of the Revelation, for doing which we have no ground, since in 
1 Thess. too, /.c., only one trumpet is mentioned, and that one taken for 
granted as well known. It is true that the Rabbins also taught that God 
will sound the trumpet seven times, and that in such a way that the resurrec- 
tion will develop itself in seven acts ;' but this conception, too, was foreign 
to the apostle, seeing that he represents the rising as an instantaneous event 
without breaks of development. It may be added, that the trumpet of the 
Parousia (see, already, Matt. xxiv. 31) is not to be explained away, either 
with Wolf and others : ‘‘ cum signa apparebunt judicii jam celebrandi,” or, 
with Olshausen (comp. Maier), of a startling work of the Spirit, arousing 
mankind fora great end. Comp., too, Theophylact, who understands by 
the cdamyé the cé2evoua and vetua of God 76 did ravTwv d@avov ; as in substance 
also Usteri, p. 356, Billroth, Neander, Hofmann.? As regards the phrase 
in itself, we might compare the Homeric agi dé oddArcyfev péyac ovpavdc, Ll. 
xxi. 388, where the thunder (as signal for the onset) is meant. But the con- 
nection gives us no right whatever to assume a non-literal, imaginative repre- 
sentation. On the contrary, Paul has in fact carried with him the concep- 
tion of the resurrection trumpet (resting upon Ex. xix. 16) from the popular 
sphere of conception, attested also in Matt. 7c. (comp. 4 Esdr. vi. 24), 
into his Christian sphere,* as he then himself adds forthwith by way of con- 
firmation and with solemn emphasis: cadmice: yap x.7.A.| for the trumpet 
shall sound, and the dead (the Christians who have already died up to that 


time) shall be raised incorruptible, and we (who are still alive then) shall be 


changed. The paratactic expression (instead of ére yap, or some other such 
form of subordination) should of itself have been sufficient to prevent the 
divesting the cadar. ydp. of its emphasis by regarding it simply as an intro- 
duction to what follows in connection with év tr. éoy. oaaxr. (Hofmann); 
comp. Kiihner, § 720, 4; Winer, p. 585 [E. T. 785]. A special attention 
is to be given to the oadric. Instead of jueic aAAay., Paul might have written 
ol Cavtec dAAayhoovra ; but from his persuasion that he should live to see 
the Parousia, he includes himself with the rest.* (c*) Comp, on ver. 51. 


1“ Primo sono totus mundus commove- to de Wette, it is generally the apocalyptic 
bitur; secundo pulvis separabitur; tertio figure for solemn, divinely-effected catas- 
ossa colligentur .. . tuba septima vivista-  trophes. 
bunt pedibus suis.”» See Eisenmenger, 3 The recognition of this form of concep- 
entdeckt. Judenth. Il. p. 929. tion by no means implies that a dogma is to 

2 Lange in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1836, p.708, be made out of it. 
thinks of a revolution of the earth which will 4 As in 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff., to which pas- 


be the signal of the advent of Christ. sage, however, this one does not stand in 
Osiander holds that the victory over the last the relation of a further advance of develop- 
enemy (vy. 25, 27) is pointed at. According ment, or more thorough liberation from 


388 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Van Hengel is wrong in referring oi vexpoi to those now (when Paul wrote) 
already dead, and zjuei¢ to those now still alive, of whom a part will then be 
also dead ; aadzay. can apply only to the change of the living. — cadrice: (se. 
6 admiykthe) has become in its use just as impersonal as dei, vider, al. See 
Elmsl. ad Heracl. 830 ; Kithner, II. p. 36, and ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.17. The 
form cadriow instead of cadamriyew is later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
191. 

Ver. 53. Confirmation of what has last been said, x. jueic aAAay., by the 
necessity of this change. — dei] denotes, in accordance with ver. 50, the ab- 
solute necessity. — 10 ¢faprov tovro] pointing to it ; Paul looks, as he writes, 
at his own body. — évdicacha adbapo.| figurative description (2 Cor. v. 4) 
of the process of change to an incorruptible condition of existence ; abavaciac Kai 
apfapsiag éxtobone ait, Chrysostom. The infinitives aorist are purposely 
chosen to denote the instantaneous completion. 

Ver. 54, Then, however, when this our change has taken, place, shall the 
dominion of death cease ; no one shail die any more. —érav 02. . . dbavac. | 
and, as it were, triumphant repetition of the same weighty words. Comp. 
Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix. Theodoret calls the passage a song of 
victory. All the less is the first clause to be rejected, with Hofmann, on 
critical grounds. The first corrector of § has rightly restored it. — yevfoerac] 
shall come to pass (in respect of its contents) the word, 7.e. it shall become 
actual,—the written word shall become fact. Hofmann wrongly takes it : 
Men shall then say so, as it stands written. Where a Adyo¢ or paua goes forth, 
z.é. is spoken, there stands along with it the preposition of direction (as 
John x. 85, Luke iii. 2, and frequently ; comp. Gen. xv. 1, al.), or whence 

he word comes (as Jer. xxvi. 1), or through whom it goes forth (from God ; 
as Hage. i. 3). It may be added, that they are not things simultaneous 
which are announced in the protasis and apodosis (as Hofmann objects) ; 
but when that which is spoken of in the protasis shall have taken place, 
then, because from this time forward no one shall fall any more under the 
power of death, shall that be realized, etc. This is the happy consequence 
of that,—the complete victory of the life, which will link itself to that 
change which shall thus take place in the twinkling of an eye, as to its 
signal and prelude. —6 dyoc] effatwm, oraculum, 1 Macc. vii. 16 ; Plato, 
Phaedr. p. 275 B; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 105. Comp. Rom. ix. 9; John xii. 
38, XV. 25.—xKater60y x.7.4.] Isa. xxv. 8, not according to the LXX.,’ 
but according to the original text ; in quoting which, however, py? is 
rendered as passive, and nx39 is expressed in the way in which it is often 
rendered in other passages, e.g. 2 Sam. il. 26, Job xxxvi. 7, Jer. iii. 5 (but 
not here), by the LXX.: ei¢ vikoc. The meaning is: Death has been com- 
pletely done away. Comp. 2 Cor. vy. 4. This being brought to nought is 





Rabbinical reminiscences (Krauss, p. 172) ; 
for the two passages agree in substance, 
and they supplement each other. The 
incapacity, too, of the flesh for inheriting 
the kingdom forms the necessary presup- 
position for 1 Thess. iv. 17. And the resto- 


ration of all is not taught even in our pas- 
sage, ver. 54 f., where the final shout of tri- 
umph of the redeemed (ver. 26 f.) is heard. 

1 Who here translate the words of the 
prophet incorrectly: xatémev 6 Odvatos 
loxvoas, 


— 


CHAT, SV... DD. 389 


represented under the image of being swallowed up (namely, by God ; see 
the original text). As regards the event itself, comp. Rev. xxi. 4. — eic¢ 
vikoc| unto victory, i.e. so that thereby victory—namely, of the opposing power 
of eternal life in the future Aeon—is established ; cic, in the sense of the 
result." Comp. Matt. xii. 20. Nixoc is a later form, in place of the old vir. 
See Hermann, Diss. de Orph. p. 821. — Since the personified @avarog¢ is, ac- 
cording to the context, bodily death and nothing more, this passage also 
(comp. ver. 26) is of no avail for the establishment of the doctrine of res- 
toration (in opposition to Olshausen). Comp. on vv. 22, 28. The passages 
from the Rabbins, who likewise, upon the ground of Isa. /.c., teach : ‘‘ dn 
diebus ejus (Messiae) Deus S. B. deglutiet mortem,” may be seen in Wetstein. 

Ver. 55. Exulting exclamation of joy from the apostle (comp. as to zoi, 
Rom. iii. 27; 1 Cor. i. 20), who transfers himself into that blessed future 
of the yevgoeta x.7.2., ver. 54,* and breaks out, as it were, into an érvvixcov. 
In doing so, he makes words from the LXX. Hos. xiii. 14 his own, with 
free alteration. This great freedom in availing himself of the passage 
almost solely in respect of the assonance of the words, and the whole lyrical 
cast of the outburst, make it less likely that ver. 55 is still part of the quo- 
tation (the common view ; but see, in opposition to it, van Hengel). — 71d 
xévtpov| Paul images to himself death asa beast with a deadly sting (a scor- 
pion, or the like). Billroth, following Schoettgen thinks of a goad, which 
death uses in order to cultivate its field. But this conception is not in the 
least recalled by the context. Olshausen, too, is wrong in holding that 73 
xévtpov denotes that which elicits the forthputting of strength : ‘‘ sin aza- 
kens the sleeping strength of death, and the law, again, that of sin.” Then, 
plainly, 7d Kévtpov tov Oavarov, ver. 56, would be that which stings death, 
which is impossible according to ver. 55 !—In the second question, ac- 
cording to the Recepta rov cov, adn x.7.2., the (personified) Hades is looked 
upon as having lost the victory ; for it has not only had, in virtue of the 
resurrection of the bodies, to render up the souls of the departed which lay 
under its power, but it receives no other souls into its power any more. 
According to the reading :* row cov, Oavare x.7.2. (see the critical remarks), 
the new element, which comes as a climax, is brought forward in 70 vixo¢ 
by way of addition, after a bold repetition of the same address ; so that, 
putting aside the interrogative form, the meaning of the triumphant outburst 
is: Thou death stingest no more, for no one dies henceforth ; thou death hast 
lost the victory, for the power of eternal life has won it over thee. 


1 According to Osiander, «is is local; so  lact. According to van Hengel, Paul is 


that vixos is presented under the image ofa 
wild beast, which swallows up its prey. 
Against this view there is, first, the absence 
of the article ; secondly, eis (we should have 
expected vo, comp. Polyb. ii. 41. 7); lastly, 


the ro vicos which follows vv. 55, 57.— - 


Luther’s gloss puts it happily and graphi- 
cally : ‘‘ Death lies undermost, and has now 


no strength left; but life lies uppermost, 


and says, Victory !”’ 
2 So, rightly, Chrysostom and Theophy- 


speaking of the present life, namely, of the 
joy of hope. But it is just the boldness of 
the flight of thought which is the most 
Pauline feature in our passage. The Kévzpov 
also is taken in too weak a sense by van 
Hengel, namely, in that of only a hurting, 
not a deadly sting, by which, in his view, 
the terrors of death are meant. 

3 [This reading is so well sustained as to 
be adopted by all modern editors and 
critics.—T. W. C.] 


390 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Ver. 56 f., still retaining the conception of the xévtpoy and the vixoc, 
points, by way of happy conclusion (not as introduction to the admonition 
which follows, as Hofmann would have it), to the firm dogmatic ground 
upon which this certainty of future victory rests in a connected view of 
the gospel. ‘‘ Seeing that death slays through sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin, 
again, is powerful through the daw (Rom. vii. 7 ff.), it is thus certain that 
God gives us the victory over death through Jesus Christ.” Christ, that is 
to say, has indeed blotted out sin through His ijacrfpiov, has risen for our 
righteousness’ sake ; and has thus withdrawn us from the curse of the law, 
and withdrawn us by His Spirit from its power to stir up and promote sin 
(Rom. viii. 1 ff.). In this proof set forth by the apostle, the swmmary of 
his whole gospel is contained. The form, however, is not argumentative, 
but, in correspondence with the elevated and emotional tone of the passage, 
such that shadow and light are placed beside each other, but with the light 
breaking forth after the darkness, as in Rom. vii. 25, in the shape of a cry 
of thanksgiving. —76 d.ddv7r] present ; for this future victory of life over 
death is for us sure and certain. 

Ver. 58. Closing admonition, drawn in the way of inference by éore from 
Tw OLddvTe Huiv TO vikog dia K.T.A. (D*) §* T herefore—because you are sure of the 
victory — be sted fast,” etc. The eidérec «.7.2., which glances back upon that 
sure vixoc, testifies in favour of this reference of dove ; hence we have no 
adequate ground for referring éore to the whole section (de Wette, van 
Hengel, a/.), nay, even for making it extend to the whole Epistle (Hof- 
mann. — édpaiol, auetaxiv.] Comp. Col. i, 28. To conceive of the readers as 
ethical athletes (Beza), is not suggested by the context. What is expressed is 
Christian perseverance in general, under the figure of standing firm, comp. 
vii. 87 (opposite : cadevec0a, comp. Theodoret), in connection with which, 
again, dueraxiv. presents the perseverance more precisely as wnseduceableness, 
both being in opposition to the possible seductions through the deniers 
of the resurrection. Comp. on dwueraxiv., Plato, Hp. vil. p. 343 A ; Dion. 
Hal. i. p. 520 ; and on both words, Arist. Hth. il. 4. 3. — repiocebovtes év rH 
épyw T. x. wavt.| abounding in the work of the Lord, i.e. exceedingly active 
and energetic therein, always. This more precise definition of epicc. is 
confirmed by the correlative 6 «ézo¢ tuov (your pains and labour); év, again, 
denotes the definite sphere, wherein, etc. Comp. 2 Cor. vill. 7; Phil. i. 26; 
Col. u. 7; Rom. xv. 13. The égpyov rod xupiov is the work which is carried on 
in the service of Christ. Comp. xvi. 10. His is the work, in which His 
people labour. And they labour therein, each according to his different 
calling, by the active fulfilment of His will as servants of the Lord (xii. 5). 
The three points, édpaior, duerax., tepioo. x.t.A. form a climax. — eidédrec]| since 
ye know (comp. Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. i. 7, iv. 14); it introduces the motive, 
so significant in this connection, to follow the zepioo. év Tr. é. T. K.3 6 Kér0¢ 
tpov, your painstaking labour, which is devoted to the épyov r. xupiov. — xevdc | 
in vain, t.e. without result. Comp. ver. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 5. So would the 
labour be, if there were no resurrection and no victorious consummation of 
eternal life, because then the blessed reward of the labour would remain 
unattained, namely, the salvation of the Messianic kingdom which is des- 





# 
NOTES. 391 


tined for the labourer. Rom. ii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Jas. i. 12, al. — év krpin] 
is not to be connected with 6 xéro¢ iu., but with ov« gor xevdc. It depends 
upon Christ, that your labour is not fruitless ; for in Him the resurrection 
(ver. 22) and the Messianic cwrypia have their causal basis, vv. 17-19 ; Acts 
iv. 12; Rom, v. 9f., vi. 22, 28, x. 9, al. 


Notrres By AMERICAN EDITorR. 


(0°) ** Saved if you hold fast.’’ Ver. 2. 


The view which reads, ‘‘I make known... if you still hold fast’’ is fa- 
voured by Principal Brown and is adopted in the text of the Revision of 1881, 
the other view being put in the margin, which, however, the American Commit- 
tee prefer to the text. The weight of the argument appears to be with the old 
version. The force of the last clause of the verse is well given by Hodge thus: 
‘«the gospel secures salvation unless your faith is of no account.” 


(B*) ‘* That Christ died for our sins.”” Ver. 3. 

The Apostle begins the account of his Gospel not with the birth or infancy of 
Christ, but with his death. This is due not to the subject he was about to 
treat, so much as to his general custom of making the crucifixion the first and 
great theme of his preaching. (See i. 18, 23, ii. 2.) This agrees with the gen- 


eral strain of the Epistles, in which the death and resurrection of our Lord are 


the main pointsinsisted upon. Rom. iv, 25 ; Ephes. i. 7-23 ; Col. i. 14-23 ; 1. 
Tim. ii, 16. 
(Q’) ‘‘ Tf so be that the dead are not raised.’’ Ver. 15. 


The principle assumed by the objectors was that the dead could not rise. 
Hence the reply of the Apostle is, If the dead cannot rise, then Christ did not 
rise ; for Christ was dead. 


(r’) ‘* We are of all men most miserable.”’ Ver. 19. 


This is not meant to teach that Christians in this life are more wretched than 
other men, for the contrary is the case. But the point is that Christ is all in 
all to His people, the source of their present as well as of their future happi- 
ness. Without Him they are yet in their sins, under the curse of the law, un- 
reconciled to God, having no hope, and without God in the world ; and yet 
subject to all the peculiar trials incident to the Christian profession which in 
the apostolic age often included the loss of all things. 

The argument of vv. 14-19 may be summed up thus: If Christ’s resurrec- 
tion be denied, (1) the whole gospel is subverted, v. 14 ; (2) the apostles are 
made false witnesses, v. 15 ; (3) believers, instead of being pardoned, are still 
in their sins, v. 17; (4) all the dead in Christ are lost, v. 18 ; and (5) the living 
are more miserable than other men, vy. 19. 


(s?) ‘* In Christ shall all be made alive.’’ Ver. 22. 


Alford and the Speaker’s Commentary agree with Meyer in taking the ‘‘all”’ 
as meaning the entire race, and confining the ‘‘ making alive” to the mere fact 


od 


392 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of aresurrection, without saying to what. But Stanley, Hodge, Prin. Brown, 
and Beet limit the ‘‘all’’ to those who are in Christ, i.e. believers, and give 
the verb its full meaning of a resurrection unto life. The wicked are not 
thought of at all by the Apostle, and there is no reference to them here. The 
latter view seems more in accordance with all that follows to the end of the 
chapter. 


(tr?) ‘* They that are Christ’s.” Ver. 23. 


This phrase is used, Gal. v. 24, as = believers. It is difficult to see any rea- 
son why it may not be taken to denote those who belong to Christ, no matter 
in what age or country they may have lived. 


(u*) ‘* Then cometh the end.’ Ver. 24. 


The opinion which regards this phrase as meaning the end of the world is 
favoured by the natural meaning of the word, by the analogy of Scripture (Matt. 
xxiv. 6, 1. Peter iv. 7), and by the immediate connection which treats of the 
completion of Christ’s mediatiorial reign. So Stanley, Alford, Hodge, Princi- 
pal Brown, Beet, etc. Meyer’s view is rejected by most interpreters. 


(v2). ‘* All his enemies.” Ver. 25. 


The next verse seems to show clearly that the ‘‘ enemies” here refer not only 
to intelligent beings hostile to Christ, but to all forms of evil, physical or 
moral. 


(w?) «* The last enemy.” Ver. 26. 


This rendering of Meyer seems to give the sense better than the A. Y. or the 
Revised Version. Beet translates in much the same way, ‘Asa last enemy 
Death is brought to nought,”’ 


(x?) “ All in all.” ,Vera23.) 


The phrase may be taken as all things in all persons, i.e. according to the con- 
nection, the one Being who fills up the whole place in each one’s life, and is 
the sole ruler of all interests and events. To attach to it a pantheistic sense is 
utterly unreasonable and unscriptural. Stanley’s note on the verse is sugges- 
tive. 


(x°) ‘* Baptized for the dead.’’ Ver. 29. 


All that needs to be added to the thorough discussion of these words in the 
text is the remark of Hodge. ‘‘ The darkness which rests upon this passage can 
never be entirely cleared away, because the reference is to a custom of which 
no account is extant.’’ 


(z?) ‘* Is not quickened except it die.’”’ Ver. 36. 


The argument is that death is not annihilation, but disorganization, and this 
as preparatory to reorganization, so that there is merely a transition from one _ 
mode of being to another. But it is sometimes objected that while in the case 
of the seed the germ remains, so that there is no interruption in the organic 
life of the plant, the body on the contrary not only decays but is dis- 


ce ate sn eaten 


NOTES. . 393 


persed, its elements often being taken up into new conbinations. The answer 
is that the life of the body may bein the soul, which at the proper time gathers 
its materials and unfolds itself into a new body. It is certain that sameness 
does not require absolute identity of materials. No full-grown man now has a 
particle of what constituted his body when a child, yet he is sure of his per- 
sonal identity. So will it be with therisen saints. They will know themselves 
to be the same persons that died and were buried, and thisis enough to sustain 
the blessed doctrine of the resurrection. To deny that doctrine because we 
are unable to explain it would be the height of folly. 


(a*) ‘* We shall also bear.’’ Ver. 49. 


All the recent editors adopt the subjunctive reading, and render Let us also 
bear as in the margin of the Revision of 1881, and for this the external evi- 
dence greatly preponderates. Yet this seems to be a case in which: the de- 
mands of the context outweigh all other considerations. Stanley and Beet do 
not feel this, yet it would seem to be plain that Paul here is dealing not with 
ethics but physiology, Besides, Meyer, in his textual notes prefixed to the chap- 
ter, shows very clearly how the vicious reading may have originated. 


(B*) ‘* We shall not all sleep.’’ Ver. 51, 


Dr. Meyer seems to understand the Apostle as affirming a confident expecta- 
tion that he and others of that generation would survive till the coming of 
Christ. To this there are two objections. First, it isnot necessary. The 
words simply mean that all (including both the Apostle and his readers) will 
not die, but while some will escape death, none will escape a total bodily 
change. Secondly, to suppose that the Apostle solemnly, under divine di- 
rection, announced to his readers what was not the fact, would be to impeach 
his inspiration. 

; (c3) ‘* We shall be changed.” Ver. 51, 


The author’s assumption that the Apostle here states his belief that he should 
live to see the Parousia is not necessary, since the words may mean merely ‘‘all 
of us who are alive shall be changed,” and besides is opposed to his own state- 
ment to the Thessalonians (II. iv. 15), whom he warns against expecting a 
speedy occurrence of the Advent, 


(p®) ‘* Therefore be ye stedfast.’’ Ver. 58, 


The sudden subsidence of so impassioned a strain of triumph into so sober a 
conclusion is a remarkable instance of the practical character of the New Testa- 
ment teaching (Stanley). 


/ 


394 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


Ver. 2. caBBdarov] recommended by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. Riick. 
Tisch., following A BCDEFG J &** 17, Syr. Vulg. Chrys., al. Elz. and 
Scholz, however, have ouf3arwr, an alteration in accordance with passages 
such as Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2 ; Luke xxiv. 1.— Ver. 7. Instead of the 
second ydp, Elzevir has dé, against decisive evidence. An alteration to express 
the antithesis. — étitpéry] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read, as approved previously 
by Griesb. : érirpéyy, following A BC J &, min. Chrys. Theoph. ms. Rightly ; 
comp. Heb. vi. 3. — Ver. 17. iuav] iuérepov should be adopted, according to 
preponderant evidence ; and comp. Phil. ii. 30.— Instead of otro, A D E 
F G, 64, Vulg. Chrys. Oec. Ambrosiast. have airo/, which is recommended by 
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Riick, Tisch. Rightly ; the external evidence 
is considerable enough, and ovjro. might easily be written on the margin by 
way of gloss. —Ver. 19. In place of IlpioxsAAa we should write IIpioxa, with 
Tisch., following B 8, 17, and several vss. Pel. The former name was taken 
from the Acts. — Ver, 22. ’Ijootv Xprorév in Elz. after xipioy (against A B C* 
8 * and several min, Aeth. Copt.) is an old, readily-occurring addition. 


Vv. 1-9. Regarding the collection for Jerusalem ; doubtless (comp. vii. 1, 
viii. 2, xii. 1) occasioned by a question in the Corinthian letter. 

‘Ver. 1. The construction may be : @orep wept tie oy. diét. Taig éKKA. THC 
Tad., oro «.7.A. Comp. 2, Cor. ix. 1-3:also "1 Cor. xine Stilaep eee 
dyiovg may also be taken by itself (de Wette and others), comp. ver. 12, vii. 
1, viii. 1. We cannot, indeed, decide, but the latter is more in harmony. 
with the inartificial movement of the epistolary style. — Aoyia’ ovAdoyy, 
Suidas, comp. Hesychius. Without example elsewhere save in the 
Fathers. — ei¢ tobe dyiovc] 1.€. ei¢ Tove TTwYOdCG TOY dyiwy Tov év ‘IepovoadAny, 
Rom. xv. 26. This detail, however, was obvious of itself to the readers ; 
the assumption that oi ayo by itself denoted the mother church (Hofmann) ? 
is neither necessary nor capable of proof ; they are the ayo: whe are known ; 
the readers were acquainted with the fact, for whem the apostle made the 
collection. — The poverty of the church at Jerusalem explains itself in part 
from the community of goods which had formerly ? subsisted there (see on 
Acts ii. 44 f.). This poverty itself, along with the high interest excited by 
what was in truth the mother church of the whole of Christendom, as well 
as Gal. ii. 10, and generally Paul’s love for his people (Rom. ix. 3), which 
made sacrifices with joy, form a sufficient explanation of his great zeal in 
their support, and of his delivering over the sums raised in person, notwith- 


1 See in opposition to this explanation of 2 The community of goods cannot by this 
ot aycor, Which was previously proposed by _ time have subsisted any longer; otherwise 
Wieseler also, Riehm, Lehrbegr.d. Hebr. Br. it could not have been said, Rom. J.c., tovs 
p. xviii. ed. 2. TTwXoUSs THY ayiwy. See Acts iv. 34. 


Loi A ae og aa 395 


standing the dangers which he saw before him. Riickert’s view (comp. 
also Olshausen), that Paul desired to appease the minds of the Jewish 
Christians there which were embittered against him, before he journeyed 
into the west, has no trace whatever of its existence either in the Acts or 
the Epistles. See, on the contrary, Acts xxi. 17-24. Riickert even asserts 
that such a reason alone could justify him in undertaking so perilous a 
journey. But see Acts xx. 22-24. — ric Tadar.] whether from Ephesus by 
messengers, or in person on the journey mentioned in Acts xviii. 23 
(Osiander, Neander, Wieseler), or by letter (so Ewald), must be left unde- 
cided. In the Epistle to the Galatians preserved to us there is no mention 
of this collection ; for Gal. ii. 10 is of general import, although it is thg 
basis of the apostolic dsatdcoew, as well as the special warrant for it. For 
the rest, Bengel aptly says: ‘*‘ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthio- 
rum exemplum Macedonibus, et Macedonum Romanis proponit, 2 Cor. ix. 
2; Rom. xv. 26. Magna exemplorum vis.” But a proof, too, how Paul 
sought to foster the community of life and effort in his churches (comp. 
Lechler, p. 364 f.), and how the appointed mode of doing so had already 
approved itself. 

‘Ver. 2. Kara piav caBBatov| on each first day of the week. A Hebraism 
very common in the New Testament, in accordance with the Jewish custom 
of designating the days of the week by DAW2 WIS, Dawa WY, etc. Light- 
foot, Hor. ad Matth. xxviii. 1. (n°) The singular of caBB. also means week, as in 
Mark xvi. 9 ; Luke xviii. 12.— It does not, indeed, follow from this pas- 
sage in itself that the Sunday was already observed at that time by assem- 
blies for the worship of God, although this is to be assumed from other 
indications (see regarding this on Acts xx. 7) ; for zap’ éavt@ riWérw Cannot 
refer to the laying down of money in the assembly (Estius, Bengel, 
Mosheim, al.) ; but no doubt it does show that to the Christian conscious- 
ness it was a holy day in whose consecration the appropriateness of such 
works of love was felt, ta yap améppyra ayaba Kai 4 pila Kal 4 apyy THE Cure 
qperépac év Tabry yéyovev, Chrysostom. — rap’ éavt@ tibétw x.t.a.| let him lay 
up in store at home whatever (quodcunque) he succeeds in, i.e. if he has suc- 
cess in anything, let him lay it up (i.e. what has been gained thereby), comp. 
expressions such as in John xii. 5; Matt. xix. 21, etc.. Comp. Herod. vi. 
73: KAcouéved evwd00n TO rpzyua. Fccles. xi. 16, xxxvill. 14, xl. 1; Tobit 
iv. 19; 3 John 2. To supply @ycavpifev after evod. (Hofmann) is superflu- 
ous. Explanations such as quod ei placuerit (Vulgate,’ Erasmus, Paraphr., 
Luther, a/.), and that of Billroth and Riickert, following older interpreters : 
what is possible for him without burdening himself, are not in accordance with 
the literal sense of evoddw (see on Rom. i. 10). wap’ éavtd : at home, chez lui, 
-see on Luke xxiv. 12. Loesner, Obss. p. 297. Oncavpifur : ‘naulatim 
cumulum aliquem faciens,” Grotius. —iva py «.7.2.] in order that gatherings 
be not made, when I shall have come. The collection was to be then so far 
already made, that every one would only have to produce what he had 


1The Vulgate, perhaps, may have read evSox7. Comp. the Gothic: “ thatei vili”? (what 
he will). 


396 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

already gathered together week by week out of his profits in trade. By this 
whole injunction Paul doubtless had in view both the enlargement and the 
acceleration in due season of the collection. 

Ver. 8. Ob¢ éav doxiu. | whomsoever you shall consider jit. Paul thus makes 
the appointment of the persons wha were to bring the money dependent 
upon the choice of his readers ; hence Grotius observes : ‘‘ Vide, quomodo 
vir tantus nullam suspicion’ rimam aperire voluerit.” It is possible, how- 
ever, that he had never thought of that ; for it was quite natural for him, 
with his fine practical tact, not to anticipate the givers as respects the trans- 
mission, of their gifts. — dv éxvctoAdv| by means of letters, by my giving them 
letters along with them to express their mission. Comp. Winer, p. 856 [E. 
T. 476]. The plural might denote the category (by way of letter), and thus 
only one letter be meant (Heumann) ; but there is nothing to compel us to 
depart from the plural sense, for Paul very reasonably might design to write 
different letters to several persons at Jerusalem.’ Av ézior. is to be connected 
with what follows (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and the majority of modern 
expositors), and it is put first, because Paul has already in his mind the 
other possible alternative, that he himself may make the journey. The 
majority of the older editors (except Er. Schmid), also Beza, Calvin, Estius, 
al., connect it with doxiu : ‘‘quos Hierosolymitanis per epistolas commenda- 
veritis,” Wetstein. But in that case the réu would surely be somewhat 
meaningless ! No; the bearers of the collection are to be chosen by the 
givers; but it is Paul, as the originator and apostolically commissioned 
steward (Gal. ii. 10) of the collection, who sends the money. —ryv yapw iu. | 
your love-gift, beneficium. Comp. 2 Cor. vill. 4, 6, 7, 19. ‘‘ Gratiosa appel-, 
latio,” Bengel ; comp. Oecumenius ; Xen. Ag. iv. 4 f., Hier. viii. 4; Eccles. 
11.\29;))xxx. 6, xxix, 155.4. Macesves, 

Ver. 4. In case, however, of it (what is being spoken of, 7.e. the result of 
the collection) being worthy that I too should journey (to Jerusalem), then 
they shall journey with me. The genitive tov ropevecbac depends upon décor. 
Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 845 Winer, p. 304 [E. T. 408]. — Paul 
makes his own journeying thither dependent upon the issue of the collec- 
tion, not, of course, for the sake of safety in its conveyance, nor yet because, 
in the event of a considerable sum being realized, he desired to be indepen- 
dent in connection with the application of it, but—which alone results from 
agcov without arbitrariness—because a scanty sum would have been dispro- 


1 We see, too, from this passage how com- 
mon it was for the apostle, in the course 
of his work, to indite letters even to indi- 
viduals. Who knows how many of such 
writings of his have been lost! The only 
letter of the kind which we still have (set- 
ting aside the pastoral Epistles), that to 
Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps 
solely to the circumstance that it was 
addressed at the same time to the church in 
the house (Philem. 2). 

2Tt is clear from xdué mop. that he will 


not make the journey at any rate (Hof- 
mann), but that he makes it dependent on 
the above-named circumstance whether /e 
also saall journey thither. What a strange 
state of things, too, would be the result, 
if he were resolved to journey at any rate, 
but the messengers, in the event of the col- 
lection proving a small one, were to make 
the journey not in his company, but alone! 
Paul assuredly did not contemplate any- 
thing so paltry. 


CHAP. XVI., 5—%. 397 


portionate to an extraordinary mission. Consideration for the decorum at- 


_taching to the apostolic rank underlies his procedure, not the prudential 


motive : ‘‘in order, on this opportunity, to fulfil his purpose of going to 
Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), and to prepare for himself there a good reception” 
(de Wette), or in order by this journey to heal the breach between the Jew- 
ish and Gentile Christians (Baur). Bengel says well: ‘‘ Justa aestimatio 
sui non est superbia.” At the same time, he will not undertake this charge 
alone ; see 2 Cor. vill. 20. 

Ver. 5 f. His arrival, which had not hitherto been specifically determined, 
is now defined by him as respects its time. —6érav Maxed. 61é2,60] According 
to 2 Cor. i. 15, it had previously been his plan to proceed from Ephesus by 
Corinth to Macedonia, from Macedonia again back to Corinth, and then on- 
ward to Jerusalem. This plan, however, he has altered (see 2 Cor. 1. 15, 
23 ff.), and he now intends to journey first through Macedonia, and then 
to Corinth, where he thinks perhaps (rvyév) to spend some time, or even to 
winter. In the second Epistle, too, we sce him actually engaged on this 
journey in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13, vill. 1, 1x. 2, 4), and upon the way to 
Corinth (i. 1, xii. 14, xiii. 1, al.). Acts xx. 1, 2, agrees with this. — Maxed. 
yap dvépx.| is not a parenthesis, but the Maxed. put first corresponds to the 
xpo¢ tuac dé which follows, and the diépyoua to the rapauevd : for Macedonia 
I journey through (without halting), but with you will I perhaps remain. The 
present duépx. designates the future as present in conception, 7.e. conceived 
as quite certain.’ From the erroneous rendering : [ am on my journey 
through Macedonia, arose the erroneous statement in the subscription, that 
the letter was written from Philippi. — rapayevo] he remained three months, 
Acts xx. 2. —iva tpeic x.7.A.] tyeic has the emphasis. Were Paul to remain 
in another church, others would give him the escort ; there is something 
kindly both in ia and in iveic, the unprompted thoughtfulness of love. — 
tuz6v| forsan, only here in the New Testament, very common in Greek 
writers. —oiv] As Luke x.1. Bornemann, Schol. in loc. ; Kiihner, II. p. 318. 
Whither his thoughts, however, were generally turned at that time, sce 
Acts xix. 21. 

Ver. 7. or it is not my will to see you now in passing. Since he does not 
say wadw év rap., but apt: év rap., no inference can be drawn from this pas- 
sage to decide the question (see introduction to 2 Cor. § 2) whether Paul 
had been already twice in Corinth before writing our Epistle to the Corin- 
thians (in opposition to Schrader, Neander, Wieseler, Otto) ; but he says 
simply : it is not his will now to visit the Corinthians only as a passing trave!- 
ler, which leaves it quite undecided whether he has already previously 
visited them once éy rapdd (so, too, Hofmann) or not. In order rightly to 
understand the passage, observe that the tuac, which is put first on that ac- 
count, has the emphasis, in contrast to the Macedonians. The Corinthians, 
in the journey which he is now about to make, are to have the advantage over 
the Macedonians, whom he will only see in journeying through, ver. 5.7 Ac- 


1 [That is, Zam to pass, not Iam passing, a 2This also against. Otto, LPastorald. p. 
sense of the present tense not uncommon 056 f. 
in the New Testament.—T. W. C.] 


398 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


cording to Billroth and others, the thought is meant to be, that he will not now 
see them, as he had formerly intended, on his journey through (to Macedonia). 
But in that case he would have written : dpre yap ov O20 k.7.A. Regarding 
év rapédw, comp. Thue. i. 126. 7, v. 4. 5, vii. 2. 3; Polyb. v. 68. 8; Lucian, 
D. Deor. xxiv. 2.— é2rilo yap «.7.2.] ground of the ov 620 x.7.4. 3 for he 
hopes that the Lord will enable him to make a longer visit to the church 
than merely év zapédm, and upon the ground of this hope it is not his will, 
etc. —6 xtpioc] Christ, in whose service the apostle journeys and works 
(Acts xvi. 7, 10). —ézurpédy] shall have allowed, i.e. shall have given signs 
of His approval. ‘‘ Pia conditio,” Bengel. Comp. iv. 19. 

Vv. 8, 9. Paul now mentions the duration of his present stay in Ephesus, 
and the reason of it. —tfe¢ revryx.] is the immediately impending festival of 
Pentecost. See Introduction, § 3. Nothing can be inferred from our text, 
which contains simply a statement of time, in support of a Christian cele- 
bration of this festival as already by this time subsisting. — @ipa yap ot x.T.A. | 
The figurative expression (comp. Wetstein) denotes the opportunity opened 
before him for working (otherwise Acts xiv. 27). Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 12, and 
see on Col. iv. 3. (F*) Meyda applies to the extent, évepy. to the influence of the 
sphere of action offered ; the latter epithet, however, powerful, corresponds 
not to the figure but to the matter, and even to that only in so far as it is 
conceived of as immediately connected with the opened 6ipa,—a want of con- 
gruity in the animated and versatile mode of representation (comp. Plato, 
Phaedr. p. 245 A: Movody éxt rounrixdc Obpac adixyrar) which occasioned the 
reading évapyijc, evidens (Vulgate, Itala, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Beda), 
which occurs in Philem. 6, and is approved by Beza, Grotius, Bos, and 
Clericus. As regards the later Greek of dvéwyev (instead of avé@xra:, as 46, 
Theophylact and Oecumenius actually read), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 157 f. 
—k. avrixeiu. ToAdoi] ‘quibus resistam. ‘Saepe bonum et contra ca malum 
simul valde vigent,” Bengel. 

Vv. 10, 11. Recommendation of Timothy (iv. 17) to be well received 
and escorted back. He is not the bearer of our Epistle (Bleek), but jour- 
neyed through Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and must arrive in Corinth later 
than the Epistle. — éav dé &2.6y] if, indeed, he shall have come. FRiickert holds 
that érav would have been more correct. Either one or other was correct, 
just according to the conception of the writer. He conceives of the arrival 
of Timothy as conditioned by the circumstances, and therefore places it 
under the hypothetical, not under the temporal (érav), point of view.— iva 
x.7.4.] design of the BAérere : be careful, in order that he, etc. Paul might 
zlso have written negatively: BAérere, uy év 96B8w (ti. 8), or iva ph é. 6. (2 
John 8), etc. The positive expression, however, demands more; his going 
out and in among the readers is to be free from fear. Comp. on yivecbat 
with the adverb of the mode of the going out and in, Herod. i. 8, ix. 109 : 
Plut. Alex. 69, Demetr. 11, Mor. p. 127 A ; also Plato, Prot. 825 B ; Tobit 
vii. 9, 11 ; 1 Mace. viii. 29. They are so to conduct themselves towards 
him that he shall not be intimidated among them. This peculiar a¢éBwe, as 
well as the reason assigned which follows 13 yap épyov x.7.2., and the con- 
clusion again drawn from it: yf zi oby air. tovbevfon, make it probable 











= = — 


as 


GUA? XVL21s: o09 


that Paul has in view not the @/-will of his own opponents, which his friend 
might encounter (Osiander, Neander), with which the 70 yap... o¢ kai 


276 does not well agree, but the youth of Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 12), on 


account of which, in a church to some extent of a high-minded tendency, 
he might easily be not held in iull respect, slighted and intimidated. So 
already Chrysostom and the majority of interpreters. The sconjecture that 
Timothy was of a timid nature (de Wette) is without a trace of historical 
support, and is superfluous. Regarding 70 zpy. tov xup., see on xv. 58. — ev 
eipyvy| is not to be explained from the formula : ropebecBar év eiphyn (so 
Calvin : ‘‘salvyum ab omni noxa,” comp. Beza, Flatt, Maier), since, on the 
contrary, the context would lead us to think, in accordance with agéBu¢ and 
ph tic éov8., of a peaceful escort, a xporéurew in peace and concord, yupic 
payne x. dAovetxiac (Chrysostom, Theophylact). Flatt and Hofmann refer év | 
eip. to what follows (that he may come to me safely and without danger). But 
the subsequent reason assigned contains nothing referable to év eipfvn, 
which must have been the case, had it been so emphatically put first. Be- 
sides, the escort to be given was not for protection, but in testimony of love 
and reverence. — iva 2Afy xpdé¢ we] There is implied, namely, in zporéuware 
k.7.A., With its aim as here defined : ‘‘in order that he may come (back) to 
me,” the admonition not to detain him too long in Corinth—for Paul is 
expecting him. — pera tov adei¢ov] Several others, therefore, besides Erastus 
(Acts xix. 22), had journeyed with Timothy.! 

Ver. 12. Aé] marks the transition from Timothy to Apollos. — epi dé ’Ar. 
tov ad.| stands independently : quod attinet ad Apoll., as ver. 1, vii. 1. —iva 
é20y k.7.A.| design of the rod rapexdreca avtov : I have advised him much, in 
order that he should come, etc. Paul makes this remark : ‘‘ne Corinthii sus- 
picentur, ab eo fuisse impeditum,” Calvin. Perhaps they had expressly 
besought that Apollos might be sent to them. — 70224 is intensive, as in 
ver. 19, and often in Greek writers. — pera trav ade2gav] These are the 
Corinthian Christians, who journeyed back from Ephesus to Corinth with 
this Epistle. See ver. 17. Here also the words are not to be joined with 
mapexddeoa (Hofmann), but with iva 226 «.7.4., beside which they stand. — 
kai wTavtwc K.7.2.| And the will was wholly (out and out) lacking (‘‘sermo quasi 
impersonalis,” Bengel) that he should come now, comp. Matt. xviii. 14. 
The context compels us to understand @éAnua of the will of Apollos, not of 
God’s will (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, Riickert). kai 
does not stand for 4424 (Beza and others) comp. Rom, 1. 13. — érav eixarp. | 
So soon as he shall have found a convenient time for it. Regarding the late- 
ness of the word in Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125. 


_ Remarx.—lIt follows from this passage that Apollos, who by this time must 
have been again (Acts xviii. 24 ff.) in Ephesus,? was neither a faction-maker 


1 To refer it to éxdéy.: I with the brethren be sent together on such missions. 
who are here (Bengel and de Wette unde- 2 He seems, however, just when this let- 
cidedly, older interpreters in Calovius, and ter was written to have been absent fora 
again Hofmann), has the analogy of ver.12 _ time, since no special grecting is sent from 
againstit. It wasusualthat several should him. 


400 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


nor at variance with Paul, for Paul himself plainly regarded his going to Cor- 
inth as a thing advantageous and to be desired. Hence, too, the refusal of 
Apollos is not to be explained from fear of adding new fuel to the party heats, 
but simply from the contents of the érav eveaipjoy. He must have found hin- 
drances for the present in the relations of his work, by which he saw himself 
detained from,the desired journey until a more convenient time, so that he did 
not yield even to the advice of theapostle. The text tells us nothing further ; 
but the Corinthians themselves might learn more details from the bearers of 
the Epistle. Van Hengel (Gave d. talen. p. 111 f.) brings the refusal into a too 
arbitrarily assumed connection with the Corinthian misuse of the glossolalia, 


Ver. 13 f. In conclusion of the whole Epistle, and without connection or 
reference to what has immediately preceded, there is now added a concise 
exhortation which compresses closely together, in five imperatives following 
each other asyndetically, the whole sum of the Christian calling, upon 
which are then to follow some personal commendations and greetings, as 
well as, lastly, the proper closing greeting and the benediction. — The yp7yo- 
psite summons to Christian foresight and soberness, without which stedfast- 
ness in the faith (ar#«. év r. rior.) 18 not possible ;' (@*) avdpifecbe and 
Kpataovobe, again, to the manly (‘‘muliebris enim omnis inconstantia,” 
Pelagius) and vigorous resistance against all dangers, without which that 
stedfastness cannot continue. — avdpifecba] to bear oneself manfully, to be 
manly in bearing and action; only here in the New Testament, but often 
in classic writers, see Wetstein, and in the LXX. Comp. the Homeric 
avépec éote, Il. v. 529; and see, also, Valckenaer, ad Herod. vii. 210; Heind. 
ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 B. Comp. avdpixdc brousivar pdyecba x.7.2., Ast, 
Lex. Plat. I. p. 165. —kpataoiobe] be strong. Comp. Eph. iti. 16: duvdyec 
Kpatajvar b:a Tov Tvebuatog avTov sig Tov éow GvOpwrov. The verbal form 
occurs in the LXX. and Apocrypha ; not in Greek writers, who say xpart- 
veobat. —év ayary| as in the life-sphere of the whole Christian disposition 
and action, chap. xiii., and, in particular, of mutual edification, viii. 1.. 

Vv. 15-18. Commendation of the three Corinthian delegates who had 
brought to the apostle the letter of the church ; first of all (ver, 15 f.) and 
chiefly, of Stephanas (i. 16) and his house. The special expression which 
Paul gives (ver. 16) to the commendation of Stephanas must have been 
grounded in some antagonism unknown to us, which the man had to lament 
in his work for the church. — xapaxa2@] The question is, Whether the ex- 
hortation itself begins at once with oidare (so that the latter would be inper- 
ative), or only with iva, so that oidate would be indicative, and the passage 
ending with éavrot¢ would put forward the motive in the first place? The 
latter is the ordinary view and the only correct one, for oidate as an imper- 
ative form (instead of iore) cannot be pointed out (in opposition to Erasmus, 
Wolf, Heydenreich) ; on the supposition of its being imperative, eidévat 
would require to be taken as in 1 Thess. v. 12 (‘‘ut jubeat agnosci bene 
meritos,”’ Erasmus) ; on the view of its being indicative, it is the simple 
know. 'The construction is the ordinary attraction oidd ce tig ei, and oidare 
. . . éavrobc is an auxiliary thought which interrupts the construction (comp. 
Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 34 6). — arapyy tic’ Ay. | t.e. the first family which 


OHAry XVis; 17, 1S AOL 


had accepted Christianity in Achaia ; the holy jirst-fruits of the land, in so 
far as it was destined to become, and was in process of becoming, Christian. 
Comp. Rom. xv. 6. — éragav| The plural, on account of the collective oixia. 
They have set themselves (voluntarily devoted themselves and placed them- 
selves at the post) for the service of the saints. Instances of rdocevy éavrdv in this 
sense may be seen in Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 234. Comp. Plato, Rep. 
p. 871 C : éavrove éxit tHv diaxoviay ratrover tabtyv, Xen. Ages. li. 25, Mem. ii. 
1.11. Beza denies the emphasis of éavrotc, unwarrantably, but in the inter- 
est of the ‘‘ vocatio legitima.”’ We have no more precise knowledge of the 
historical circumstances here pointed to. Perhaps Stephanas devoted him- 
self also especially to journeys, embassies, execution of special commissions, 
and the like ; his wife, to the care of the poor and sick. — roic ayiouc is an appro- 
priating dative to dvax. See, already, Raphel, Xenoph. in loc. ; Bernhardy, 
p- 88. By of dyson are meant the Christians, as in ver. 1 ; not, however, the 
mother church at Jerusalem (Hofmann). <A reference to prosecuting the col- 
lection (in connection with which people had, it is supposed, been refractory 
towards Stephanas) lies wholly remote from the words. — kai ieic| You too. 
The «ai finds its reference, according to the context, in what goes before : 
ei¢ Olax. T. dy. érag. éavr. Wetstein is right, therefore, in saying : ‘‘illi vobis 
ministrant ; aequum est, ut vos illis vicissim honorem exhibeatis” (rather : 
obsequamint). —trordoo.| namely, to their proposals, exhortations, etc. 
Ewald and Ritschl regard Stephanas as one of the overseers of the church ; 
a relation which, however, would have required a more precise and definite 
designation than the general and qualitative totic tocobrae. See, besides, on 
i. 17. —roi¢ totobroic| to those who are so affected, indicates, in a generalizing 
‘way, the category to which Stephanas and his house belong. This general- 
ization, by which the injunction of obedience towards the concrete persons 
comes out in a less strict and immediate form, but in which it is still implied, 
is a delicacy of expression. —r@ ovvepy.] The reference of the ovy is given by 
the context from roi¢ trovobroe ; hence : who works with them, i.e. in fellowship 
with them, which presupposes harmony in the spirit and purport of the work. 
Comp. Chrysostom. While Riickert leaves us ouw choice between three 
supplements contrary to the context : ré 6c (iv. 9), éuot (so Erasmus), and 
buiv (2 Cor. 1. 24), Hofmann adds a fourth arbitrary supplement : helpful to 
increase the kingdom of God. This design is of course taken for granted of 
itself, but does not explain the ovv. — xai xomi@vti| and takes pains (therein), 
gives himself trouble about it. Comp. xv. 10, iv. 12; Gal. iv. 11; Rom. 
xvi. 6. 

Vv. 17, 18. Regarding Fortunatus (probably not different from the per- 
son named in Clem. 1 Cor. 59) and Achaicus no particulars are known. 
They are not to be included (as de Wette would have it) in the family of 
Stephanas, which has been spoken of already. Grotius holds them to be 
Chloe’s people ; but see oni. 11. — érz 76 bpérepov borépnua avtol averd. | because 
they for their part have supplied your lack (your absence). Comp. on Phil. 


1 Which does not come into consideration here, since there is no mention of entrance 
upon an ecclesiastical office. 


402 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ii. 80. ‘Yyér. is thus taken objectively (comp. xv. 31) : the lack of your pres- 
ence; and iuér. and airoi (see the critical remarks) have the emphasis. Ob-. 
serve how courteously the expression : the want of you (of your presence), is 
chosen. Hofmann, on the contrary, misses this delicate touch by taking it 
as: what was lacking in you, in this respect, namely, that you could not 
appear with me in person. With still less delicacy Grotius, who adduces in 
his support 2 Cor. ix. 12: ‘‘ quod vos omnes facere oportuit, id illi fecerunt ; 
certiorem me fecere de vestris morbis.”” He is followed by Riickert, who 
founds wrongly upon Phil. ii. 30: ‘‘ what should have been done by you, that 
have they done,” inasmuch, namely, as they had given him joy, which had 
not been done by the Corinthians. But we must not decide here by passages 
from other Epistles, since linguistically both renderings alike may be cor- 
rect, but simply by the connection, according to which the men as ambassa- 
dors from the Corinthians were the compensation to the apostle for the lack 
of the presence of the latter. Comp. Chrysostom. — avéravoav yap x.T.A. | 
reason assigned for the preceding 7d torépyua air. averd.1 Regarding the 
phrase, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13; Philem. 7, 20. —xai ré iuév] for they have 
refreshed (by their arrival here, and the communications and assurances con- 
nected therewith, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13) my spirit and yours. The latter, 
inasmuch as they had come not in their own name, but as representatives of 
the whole church; their meeting therefore with Paul could not but be refresh- 
ing to the consciousness of the whole church. As they by their presence 
provided for Paul the joy of avaravoic, so they provided it also for the church, 
which through them had entered into this fellowship with the apostle, and 
thus owed to them the refreshment which it could not but experience in the 
consciousness of this living intercourse of love with Paul brought about 
through these men. Comp. Chrysostom : ov IlatAw puédvov, adad Kai éxeivorg 
avTove yaploapuévoue Oeikvvct TO THY TOA dracav év avToic wepipéperv. Paul thus 
expresses not simply reciprocity in general,—that which is presupposed where 
there is good-will (de Wette),—but the relation implied in the representation 
of the church by their delegates,—a relation, therefore, which for the latter, 
in virtue of their acceptance of the embassage, was one of merit. ‘There 
lies here, also, in the addition of this second pronoun, a tender delicacy 
(comp. on i. 2), which the readers acquainted with the manner of the apos- 
tle could well appreciate. Grotius makes the reference to be to the assur- 
ances of Paul’s love which those men had brought with them to the Corin- 
thians. But 1d iuédr also, like 7d éudv rvevwa, must refer to the time of the 
presence of the delegates with Paul. — érywwéoxete] Attention to the com- 
pound verb : recognize them rightly (comp. on xiii. 12), should of itself have 
sufficed to prevent alterations of the sense of the word (such as : prize them 
highly, so Theophylact, Grotius, Flatt, Neander, and others). The high es- 
teem is the consequence of the éxiyww. — Tove torobrove| as in ver. 16. 

Ver. 19 f. Tye ’Aciac] in the narrower sense, comprehending the western 
coastlands of Asia Minor’(see on Acts ii. 9), where Ephesus also lay. From 


1 Had Paul and his readers met together this refreshment of both parties had now 
in person, this would have been refreshing taken place through those delegates. 
for both parties (comp. Rom. i. 12); and 


CHAP. XVL, 21-24, 403 


the latter, at least, Paul was charged with a greeting, but in the assurance of 
a like loving fellowship on the part also of the other Asiatic churches, 
with which he was in intercourse from Ephesus, he widens it. — év xvpiw| 
marks the Ohristian character of the greeting, inasmuch as it was given 
with the feeling of living and moving in Christ. Comp. on Rom. xvi. 22, 
The év xvp., which is here added, is taken for granted by the reader in the 
case of the other greetings also. But here precisely it is expressed, be- 
cause this greeting is a specially fervent one ; hence also 70/4 (much, comp. 
ver. 12). —ovtv rH Kar’ oixoy ait. éxxA.| Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), who 
had gone from Corinth (see on Acts xvili, 2) to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 26), 
had therefore given their dwelling here too, as afterwards at Rome (Rom. 
xvi. 3 f.), for the assembly of a portion of the Christians in the place. 
Comp. on Rom. 7.c. Probably Paul also lodged with them, so that the 
old: addition : rap’ ol¢ kai evifouae (DEF G, Vulg., etc.), contains a true 
statement. — oi adeAgol zdvrec| the whole of the members of the Ephesian 
- church—these, still, separately and personally, although already included 
collectively in the first greeting. —- év gid. ay.| by means of a holy kiss. See on 
Rom, xvi. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26. It is the kiss which was 
the token of Christian, brotherly love (1 Pet. v.14), and thus had the spe- 
cific character of Christian consecration. Comp. Constit. apost. li. 57. 12, 
vill. 5. 5 : 7d év xupiw diAnua. More special considerations, such as that of 
the absence of hypocrisy (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), are im- 
ported. They are to greet each other, mutually (not from Paul), with the holy 
kiss after the reading of the Epistle in the assembly, and thereby manifest 
their brotherly love to each other respectively... Comp. on Rom. xvi. 16. 
Vv. 21-24. Conclusion added with his own hand in token, according to 2 
Thess. iii. 17, comp. ii. 2, that the Epistle, though not written with his own 
hand, was his Epistle. Comp. Col. iv. 18. — 6 doracyudc] is the greeting kar’ 
éEoxnv, the final salutation to the church. Nothing is to be supplied ; on 
the contrary, Paul writes these words, and there is the greeting. — TatAov] 
in apposition to éu#. See Kiihner, UW. p. 145. —In ver. 22, looking back 
once more, as it were involuntarily, upon the many degenerate forms of 
Christian life, and the discords at Corinth, he adds an apostolic utterance of 
judgment, full of terrible solemnity, against all those who could not but 
feel that it struck at them. — od gvAci r. Kip.| is without love to Christ. So he - 
designates those Christians, who, like so many at Corinth, by factiousness, 
self-seeking, strife, a carnal life, etc., practically denied their love to Christ 
(John xiv. 23). That the course applied to them, as long as they were impen- 
atent, is self-evident. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 10.—Observe that the more sen- 
suous word @Aciv is nowhere used by Paul in those Epistles which are un- 
doubtedly his (comp., however, Tit. iii. 15), except in this passage so full of 
emotion ; elsewhere he uses ayarav (Eph. vi. 24). — rw avdd.| t.e. then let 
him be one devoted to destruction (to the eternal dréAea). See on Rom. ix. 
3; Gal. i. 8. —yapavaba] energetic reference to the Parousia, at which that 


1 We are to conceive of this aomagecSac the medium instead of words. Comp, 
adAnaovs as a silent one, in which the kiss is Const. ap. viii. 11. 4. 


404 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

fro avad. shall be realized. The word isthe Aramaic 8O8 8193, 7.¢e. our Lord 
is come, by which, however, not the coming in the flesh is meant, as Chrys- 
ostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Erasmus, Castalio, a/., assume,’ 
but, in accordance with the context (see previously 77 avaé.), the eschato- 
logical coming to judgment. Paul sees the near and certain Parousia as if 
already begun (see on this use of the Hebrew praeterite, Ewald, Lehrb. 135. 
3), and exclaims, like a prophet beholding it in vision: Our Lord is here! 
But it is not a form of putting under ban (see Lighfoot, Hor. p. 260), as indeed 
it does not occur in the Rabbinical writings ; Luther (comp. Calvin) has with- 
out any warrant made it into Maharam Motha (which would be 8) DN, 
maledictus ad mortem). According to Hofmann, papavefa is meant to be 
equivalent to M38 VW, Thou art the Lord, whereby the thought is ex- 
pressed : ‘‘ He will prove Himself in them to be Lord.” But how needless is 
this wholly novel and far less characteristic interpretation ! The traditional 
interpretation,” on the other hand, places the punishment of the gudgment di- 
rectly before our eyes. Why, we may ask further, did Paul use the Ara- 
macan expression ? We do not know. (4°) Perhaps there was implied in it 
some reminiscence from the time of the apostle’s presence among them, un- 
known to us, but carrying weight for his readers ; perhaps it was only the 
prompting of momentary indignation, that, after the sentence of judgment 
already pronounced (j7w avd0eua), ‘‘rel gravitate commotus, quasi sibi non 
satisfecisset” (Calvin), he desired to clothe in truly solemn language the 
threatening reference to the Parousia yet to be added by papavaid, instead of 
saying 6 xbpioc nyudv geet. That there was a reference, however, in the 
Aramaean expression to the Petrine party who understood Hebrew, is not to 
be assumed (in opposition to Hofmann), as the general ei tic ob gidei T. Kbpiov 
shows of itself. The two Aramaean words were doubtless intelligible enough 
in general in the mixed church, which contained so much of the Jewish 
element. Had the Maranatha, however, been as it were the mysterious 
watchword in the world of that time (Ewald), there would be in all proba- 
bility more traces of it to be found in the New Testament. This also in op- 
position to Bengel. The view of Chrysostom and Theophylact is singularly 
absurd : Paul wished by the Aramaean to cross the conceit of the Corin- 
thians in the Hellenic language and wisdom. Billroth, followed by Riickert, 
holds that he had added something in Aramaic also, in order to accredit yet 
more strongly the authenticity of the Epistle, but that this had afterwards 
been written by the transcribers in Greek letters. But the assumption that 


1 Paul, they hold, means thereby to say: 
‘*Quod superfluum sit adversus eum (Chris- 
tum) odiis pertinacibus contendere, quem 
venisse jam constet,’’ Jerome, Hp. 1387 ad 
Marcell. ; or, he means thereby to put them 
to shame, because they still continued in 
their sins after the Lord had shown such 
condescension, Chrysostom ; or, ‘‘ quando- 
quidem aversatur eum, a quo solo poterat 
consequi salutem, et venisse negat quem 
constat venisse magno bono credentium, 


sed magno malo incredulorum,’’ Erasmus, 
Paraphr. ; or, ‘‘quod si quis eum non amat, 
frustra alium expectat,’’ Castalio. 

2 Even those codd. which have written 
the word ina divided way, have the divi- 
sion not pap avata, but mapav ada. So al- 
ready B**, And the versions, too (those 
which do not with the Vulgate retain it 
untranslated), translate according to this 
division ; so already the Peshitto : Dominus 
noster venit. Cod. It. g.: in adventu Domini. 


NOTES. 405 


he had not written papavadd in Greek letters, although it has passed over so 
into all Greek mss. of the text, is equally arbitrary with the presupposition 
that he had thought such an eetraordinary and peculiar mode of attestation 
to be needful precisely in the case of this Epistle, which was already suffi- 
ciently accredited without it by the bearers. — Ver. 23. The grace of the Lord, 
etc., sc. ein, the apostle’s most common closing wish in an epistle, Rom. xvi. 
20, 24; Gal. vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 23 ; 1 Thess. v. 28 ; 2 Thess, iii. 18 ; Philem. 
25. — Ver. 24. My love, etc., se. éorc : his heart impels him still to add this 
assurance at the very end, all the more because the divisions, immoralities, 
and disorders in the church had forced from him such severe rebukes and, 
even now, such corrective appeals. He doves them, and loves them al/. If 
taken as optatwe (Luther, Estius, Ewald), it would be less suitably an indi- 
rect admonition, namely, that they might so conduct themselves that, ete. — 
év XpioT@ ’Inoov| Christ is his whole life-sphere ; in it he loves also. His love 
has thus the distinctively Christian character, in contrast to all coopcx) ayarn 
(Theophylact). 


Notts By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(u*) ‘* The first day of the week.’’ Ver. 2. 


This is generally and justly considered the earliest mention of the observance 
of the Lord’s day. It does not show that Sunday was then observed by assem- 
blies for public worship, for the direction implies that the laying by of money 
for charity was to be done individually and in private. But it does show that 
the day then had a sacred character which made it eminently suitable for the 
discharge of a duty of Christian love. On no other ground can we account for 
the mention of a specific day by the Apostle. —-It may be added that if it was 
intended, as some say, that the Old Testament obligation of contributing a 
tithe of one’s gains should be continued in the New, here was a proper place 
to mention it. 


(f°) ‘* A great door and effectual,” etc. Ver. 9. 


Two inducements for the Apostle to stay in Ephesus are a wide sphere and a 
powerful opposition. As Grotius says, what terrifies others attracts Paul. 
His reference is, on one hand, to the spread of the Gospel in the neighbourhood 
of Ephesus (Acts xix. 20), and on the other, to the opposition of Pagan (xix. 23) 
and of Jewish (xix. 33, xx. 29) enemies (Stanley). 


(c*) Stand fast in the faith. Ver. 13. 


Hodge gives well a certain phase of this injunction: ‘‘Do not consider 
every point of doctrine an open question. Matters of faith, doctrines for which 
you havea clear revelation of God, such for example as the doctrine of the 
resurrection, are to be considered settled, and as among Christians, no longer 
matters of dispute. There are doctrines embraced in the creeds of orthodox 
churches so clearly taught in Scripture that it is not only useless but hurtful to 
be always calling them into question.” —On the whole verse Beet remarks : 
‘¢ Note the military tone of these words. We are sentinels on guard, and must 
not yield to sleep. In face of the enemy we must maintain our position ; and 


406 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


we do so by abiding in faith. We must show moral courage. To this end we 
must accept the strength provided for us. This fourfold description of our 
attitude towards spiritual foes is followed by a description in one word of our 
attitude towards our fellow-Christians and fellow-men. Love must be the one 
element of our entire activity.” 


(u°) ‘* Anathema, Maran-atha.’’? Ver. 22. 


The introduction of the Aramaean phrase may best be explained as giving 
additional force to the previous curse, since such seems to be the origin of the 
use of the Syriac Abba in Rom. viii. 15, Gal, iv. 6, and of Hebrew words such as 
Abaddon and Armageddon in the Apocalypse. The assurance that ‘‘the Lord is 
coming” is a solemn reminder that the. anathema is not an idle threat, but a 
tremendous reality. —It is vain to deny, as some do (Speaker’s Com. in loc.), 
that this isan imprecation. The words can mean nothing else. The explana- 
tion is that they express no personal vindictiveness, but only the writer’s 
absolute sympathy with all holy beings in their opposition to the crowning sin 
of men, viz. their insensibility or indifference to Him who unites in himself 
all divine and all human excellence, and who so loved our lost race as to stoop 
to the cross that we might not perish, but have everlasting life. They who 
refuse to recognize such love deserve to be anathema, 


PREFACE 


TO THE COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE. 


Since the year 1862, in which the fourth edition of this Commen- 
tary was issued, the only exegetical work calling for mention on the 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (except a Roman Catholic one) is that 
of von Hofmann.. My relation to this work has already been indicated 
in the preface to the Commentary on the First Epistle ; it could not be 
different in the exposition of the Second, and it will doubtless remain un- 
altered as regards the Pauline writings that are still to follow, as is ap- 
parent already in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, my exposition 
‘of which I likewise am now issuing in a new edition. 

The much-discussed questions of Introduction—whether between our 
two Epistles to the Corinthians there intervened a letter which has been 
lost, and whether the adversaries so sharply portrayed and severely cen- 
sured by the apostle in the Second Epistle belonged to the Christ-party 
—have recently been handled afresh in special treatises with critical skill 
and acumen ; and the general result, although with diversities in detail, 
points to an affirmative answer. After careful investigation I have found 
myself constrained to abide by the negative view ; and I must still, as 
regards the second question, hold the Christine party to be the most 
innocent of the four, so that they are wrongly, in my judgment, made 
responsible for all the evil which Paul asserts of his opponents in the 
Second Epistle. Jam at a loss to know how so much that is bad can be 
brought into inward ethical connection with the simple confession éy® 
dé Xptorov without calling in the aid of hypotheses incapable of being 
proved ; or how, moreover, Paul should not already in his First Epistle, 
which was followed up by the Second in the very same year, have dis- 
covered the thoroughly dangerous springs and movements of this party- 
tendency ; or Jastly, and most of all, how Clement of Rome, while re- 
calling to the recollection of his readers the three other factions, should 
not even in a single word have mentioned the Christ-party, although in 
looking back on the past he could‘not but have had before his eyes the 
whole historical development of the fourfold division, and in particular 


408 PREFACE. 


the mischief for which the Christians were to blame, if there were in 
truth anything of the sort. I have not met with any real elucidation of 
these points among the acute supporters of the opposite view. 

In wishing for this new edition a kindly circle of readers, not led 
astray either by the presupposition of the dogmatist or by the tendency 
to import and educe subjective ideas,—as I may be allowed to do ail the 
more earnestly on account of the special difficulties that mark the present 
letter of the apostle,—I commit all work done for the science which 
applies itself soberly, faithfully, and devotedly to the service of the 
divine word—desiring and seeking nothing else than a sure historical 
understanding of that word—to the protection and the blessing of Him, 
who can do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask and understand. 
Under this protection we can do nothing against the truth, everything for 
the truth. 


Hannover, 21st June, 1870. 


THE 


SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 
§ 1 OCCASION, AIM, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE." 


: ep EFORE the composition of our first Epistle, Paul had sent 
Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17) ; he assumed, in regard 
i) to him, that he would arrive there later than the Epistle (1 
= vA Cor. xvi. 10 f.), and he might therefore expect from him 

accounts of the impression which it made, and its result. Cer- 
tainly Timothy is again with Paul, while he is composing the second Epistle 
(2 Cor. i. 1) ; but there is no mention of news brought by him. Hence 
Eichhorn was of opinion (also Riibiger and Hofmann) that he had again left 
Corinth even before the arrival of our first Epistle in that city ; others, how- 
ever (Ziegler, Bertholdt, Neander, Credner, Riickert, de Wette, Reuss, Maier), 
assumed that he had not come to Corinth aé all, but had returned from 
Macedonia, where he had made too long a stay, to Ephesus (Acts xix. 22).? 
But against the latter view may be urged the fact that, according to 1 Cor. 
iv. 17, Timothy was quite distinctly delegated to Corinth, 7.e. was commis- 
sioned to visit Corinth from Macedonia (comp. Acts xix. 22) ; hence we are 
not justified in believing that he left this apostolic mission unfulfilled, or 
that Paul himself had cancelled it, otherwise we should necessarily expect 
the apostle in this second Epistle to have explained to his readers why 
Timothy did not come, especially as the anti-Pauline party would not have 
failed to turn the non-appearance of Timothy to account for their hostile 
ends (comp. i. 17). Eichhorn’s opinion presupposes that the bearers of the 
first letter lingered on the journey (1 Cor. xvi. 17), which there is the 
less ground to assume as these men presumably had no other aim than to 
return from Ephesus to Corinth. In opposition to the opinions that Timothy 








1See Klépper, Hxeg. krit. Unters. vib. d. 
zweiten Brief. d. Paulus an ad. Gemeinde zu 
Kor., Gott. 1869. 

2 Chap. xii. 17, 18 is also quoted in con- 
firmation of this view ; for, it is said, if Tim- 
othy had come to Corinth, Paul could not 
but have mentioned him here. See espe- 


cially, Riickert, p. 409. But Paul may, dur- 
ing the time when he was not at Corinth 
himself, have sent to the church’ there 
many a one whom he does not here name. 
He names only the last, Zifws. Besides, 
Timothy was in fact joint-writer of our 
Epistle. 


410 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

did not get so far as Corinth, or that he left it again prematurely, compare, 
in general, Klépper, p. 4 ff. It must therefore be held that Paul had 
veceived from Timothy news of the impression which the former Epistle had 
made. 'The fact that he makes no mention of this is explained from the cir- 
cumstance that, in i. 1, Timothy himself appears as joint-sender of the 
Epistle ; whence not only was it obvious to the reader that Timothy on his 
return had made communications to the apostle, but it would have been un- 
becoming and awkward if Paul had said that he had received from Timothy 
accounts of the result of his Epistle. For these accounts, viz. those of the 
Jirst impression made by the letter, must have been by no means tranquilliz- 
ing for Paul (ii. 12, vii. 5 ff.). Itis true that in Phil. ii. 19 the joint-sender 
of the letter is named as a third person, but there the state of the case is 
quite different (in opposition to Hofmann), namely, a special reconvmendation 
of Timothy, just as the relation of the apostle himself to the church in 
Philippi with which he was so affectionately intimate was very dwerse from 
that in which he stood to the Corinthians. 

But besides Timothy, Titus also at a later period brought to the apostle, 
who meanwhile had travelled by way of Troas to Macedonia, intelligence of 
the result of his letter (i. 12, vii. 5 ff.). Paul had delegated the latter to 
Corinth after our first Epistle,’ and after Timothy had again arrived in 
Ephesus from the journey mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 f., comp. iv. 17 ; and 
it is natural that from Titus he should have received further (as also more 
tranquillizing) intelligence than from Timothy, because the former came later 
to Corinth. 

The occasion of our Epistle, which: Titus was to bear (viii. 6), was there- 
fore given by the accounts which first of all Timothy, but mainly Titus, had 
brought regarding the effect produced by the previous letter on the dispositions 
and relations of the Corinthian church. 


Remarx.—The special object that Paul had in sending Titus to Corinth we 
do not know ; for viii. 6 does not refer to this Journey (see vv. 23, 24), but to 
the later, second journey, in which this Epistle itself was entrusted to him. 
The supposition of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Neander, de Wette, and some others, 
that the apostle had despatched Titus out of anxiety about the impression which 
his first Epistle might make on the Corinthians, is a conjecture which receives 
some probability from ii. 12, vii. 5 ff., especially if we suppose that, before 


Titus was sent off, Timothy had returned with very disquieting news. 


1 Schrader, indeed (I. pp. 187, 262), and 
Billroth, to whose view Riickert also in- 
clines, have assumed that Titus was sent 
to Corinth before our first Epistle, perhaps 
with the one now lost, and on account of 
the matter of the collection, and that he 
was therefore in that city when our first 
Epistle arrived there. But in that case Paul 
would have mentioned Titus in his first 
Epistle (especially xvi. 1 ff.), just as he 
mentions Timothy ; and at least a greeting 
to him would not have been forgotten. 
Billroth thinks that Paul had probably al- 


Bleek 


ready in the lost Epistle said enough in rec- 
ommendation of Titus. But does this make 
a greeting in the Epistle that follows super- 
fluous? Rtickert says that the bearers of 
our first Epistle had perhaps brought with 
them a special letter to Titus, or instruc- 
tions by word of mouth, which, however, 
is a mere conjecture to which he is con- 
strained to resort. Mitiller also, De trib. Pault 
itineribus Corinth. susceptis, Bas. 1831, agrees 
with Schrader, without, however, admit- 
ting the loss of an Epistle, at 1 Cor. v.95 


INTRODUCTION. | 411 


(in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1830, p. 625 ff., and in his Jntroduction) supposes, and 

~ Oredner (Einleit. I, 2, p. 371), Olshausen, Neander, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 1864, p. 
167), Beyschlag (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 253), and Klépper (ic. p. 3 ff.) 
agree with him, that Paul, after Timothy’s return, sent to the Corinthians by 
Titus a letter of very strong reproof (which is now lost). But our first Epistle 
contained enough—especially after (Timothy had already brought with him 
disquieting news—to excite in Paul apprehensions regarding the severity of 
his letter Aaedi ett, aponiy. 6, 18-21) v.1 ff., vi. 8, x1. 17 ff., al.), enough -to 
be used by the evil-disposed in bringing a charge of boastfulness (ii. 16, iv. 1 
ff,, ix., xiv. 18, xv. 8, 10, al.); while the second Epistle contains nothing which 
required Bleek’s supposition to explain it, as will appear at such passages as 
li. 3, 4 ff., vii. 8, 11, 14, al., see in general, in opposition to Bleek’s hypoth- 
esis, Miller, de tribus Pauli itineribus, p. 34 ff.; Wurm, in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 
1833, 1, p. 66ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 366 ff.; Baur, Hofmann, 
and others. According to Ewald, as he has more precisely defined and modi- 
fied (Sendschr. des. Ap. Paulus, p. 224 ff.') his earlier hypothetical arrangement 
(Jahrb. Il. p. 227 f.), the position of things in Corinth after our first Epistle 
had in part been aggravated, especially by a Petrine opponent of Paul from 
Jerusalem ; Paul had got information of this from Timothy on his return and 
otherwise, and had himself made a short journey from Ephesus to Corinth in 
order to restore harmony to the church ; after his departure, being calumniated 
and slandered anew (especially by a member of very high repute), he then sent 
from Ephesus a very severe letter by Titus to Corinth ; and this letter, which 
has not been presented to us, brought the church to bethink itself, as he 
learned from Titus, who joined himin Macedonia. On this account, and also 
because there still remained various evils to be rectified, he at last wrote our 
second Epistle to the Corinthians, and had it sent likewise by means of Titus, 
A supposition of this kind is necessary, if the person mentioned in ii, 5 ff. can- 
not be the one guilty of incest in 1 Cor. v. But see on ii, 5-11; and for the 
supposed intermediate journey to Corinth, see § 2, Remark. 


The aim of the Epistle is stated by Paul himself at xiii. 10, viz. to put the 
church before his arrival in person into that frame of mind, which it was 
necessary that he should find, in order that he might thereupon set to work 
among them, not with stern corrective authority, but for their edification. 
But in order to attain this aim, he had to make it his chief task to elucidate, 
confirm, and vindicate his apostolic authority, which, in consequence of his 
former letter, had been assailed still more vehemently, openly, anc influen- 
tially by opponents. For, if that were regained, his whole influence would 
be regained ; if the church were again confirmed on this point, and the op- 
position defeated, every hindrance to his successful personal labour amongst 
them would be removed. With the establishment of his apostolic character 
and reputation he is therefore chiefly occupied in the whole Epistle ; every- 
thing else is only subordinate, including a detailed appeal respecting the 
collection. 

As to contents, the whole falls, after the salutation and introduction, into 
three parts: I. Paul sets forth his apostolic character and course of life, 


1 Comp. also his Gesch. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 520 ff., ed. 3. 


412 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

and interweaves with it affectionate outpourings of his heart over the im- 
pression produced by his former letter,—an ingenious apology, closing with 
expressions of praise and confidence,’ chap. i.-vii. II. Regarding the collec- 
tion, chap. vill. ix. III. Polemical assertion of his apostolic dignity against 
its opponents, with some irritation, and even not without sarcasm and bit- 
terness, but forcible and triumphant. Conclusion. 


Remark 1.—The excitement and varied play of emotion with which Paul 
wrote this letter, probably also in haste, certainly make the expression not sel- 
dom obscure and the sentences less flexible, but only heighten our admiration 
of the great delicacy, skill, and power with which this outpouring of Paul’s 
spirit and heart, possessing as a defence of himself a high and peculiar inter- 
est, flows and gushes on, till finally, in the last part, wave on wave overwhelms 
the hostile resistance. In reference to this, Erasmus aptly says, in the dedica- 
tion of his Paraphr.: “ Sudatur ab eruditissimis viris in explicandis poetarum 
ac rhetorum consiliis, at in hoc rhetore longe plus sudoris est ut deprehendas 
quid agat, quo tendat, quid vetet ; adeo stropharum plenus est undique, absit 
invidia verbis. Tanta vafricies est, non credas eandem hominem loqui, Nunc 
utlimpidus quidam fons sensim edullit, mox torrentis in morem ingenti fragore 
devolvitur, multa obiter secum rapiens, nune placide leniterque fluit, nunc 
late, velut in lacum diffusus, exspatiatur. Rursum alicubi se condit, ac diverso 
loco subitus emicat, cum visum est, miris Maeandris nunc has nunc illas lam- 
bit ripas, aliquoties procul digressus, reciprocato flexu in sese redit.’’? 

Remark 2.—The opponents specially combated from chap. x. onwards, were 
at any rate Judaists (xi. 22, Ribiger, p. 191 ff.; Neander), and therefore, from 
a party point of view, to be reckoned as belonging to the Petrine section. It is 
only the Pelrine, and not the Christine party (Schenkel, Goldhorn, Kniewel, 
Baur, de Wette, Thiersch, Osiander, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld, Klépper), that suits 
the character of disputing, directly and specially, the apostolic authority of 
Paul, whether we regard the Christines as a party by themselves, or, with Baur 
(see on 1 Cor. i. 12), as part of the Petrines, 

Remark 3.—The division of the Epistle into two halves, separate in point of 
time, so that the part up to vii. 1 was written before the arrival of Titus, and the 
part from vii. 2 onwards after it (Wieseler, p. 356 ff.), cannot be justified either 
exegetically or psychologically on the ground of vii. 6 ; while, on the ground 
of ii, 12-14, it can only be regarded as exegetically inadmissible, 


§ 2.—PLACE, TIME, GENUINENESS AND UNITY. 


When Paul wrote this letter, he was no longer in Ephesus (i. 8), but had 
already arrived by way of Troas in Macedonia (ii. 18, vii. 5, viii. 1, ix. 2, 
comp. Acts xx. 1), where Titus, whom he had already expected with longing 


1 Luther, Preface; ‘In the first Epistle, 
St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians severely 
on many points, and poured sharp wine in- 
to their wounds, and alarmed them. But 
now an apostle should be a comforting 
preacher, .. . therefore he praises them 
anew in this Epistle, and pours oil into the 
wounds,”’ etc. 


2We may confidently apply to our Epis- 
tle what Dionysius, De admir. vi. dic. in Dem. 
8, says of Demosthenes’ mode of speaking, 
which he calls : weyaAomperh, AtTHY: TepiTTHY, 
amépittov: é&nAAaypéevynv, cuvyidy TavynyupiKyy, 
adAndiuyv: avaTypav, \Aapav' oVVTOVOV, avElmevny* 
Woecav, muxpave Eduenv, madeTLKHY, 


* INTRODUCTION. ANG 


in Troas (ii. 12), returned to him. A more precise specification of the place 
(the subscriptions in B and in many later codd., also in the Peshitto, name 
Philippi) cannot be made good. The date of composition appears to be the 
same year, 58 (yet not before the month Tisri, see on viii. 10), in which, 
shortly before Easter, he had written our First Epistle, and after Pentecost 
had left Ephesus (see Introd. to 1 Cor. § 8). Paul at that time intended to 
come to Corinth for the third time, as he actually did soon after his letter to 
his readers (Acts xx. 2). 


Remarx.—From ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2, it follows of necessity that Paul 
before he wrote his Epistles to the Corinthians, had been in Corinth, not once 
only, on the occasion when he founded the church (as Reiche in his Comment. 
crit. seeks again to establish), but twice. For in xiii. 1, rpitov tovro épyouat can- 
not mean, ‘‘I am now on the point of coming for the third time;’’ hence also 
xiii. 2 must be understood of a second visit which had already taken place ; in 
ii. land xii. 21, év Avy and rarewvdéoy (which latter is to be connected with 
mad) cannot refer to the first visit ; and finally, in xii. 14, rpirov must belong to 
éAGeiv, not to éroipoc Eyw, aS is made certain by the context (see the commen- 
tary on these passages). With justice, therefore, has this view been maintained, 
after Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by Erasmus, Baronius, Mill, 
Michaelis, and others, and recently by Schrader, Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1830, p. 614 ff.), Miiller (Diss. detrib. Pauli. itineribus Corinthum, etc., Basil. 1831) 
Schott (Hrért. einiger wicht. chronol. Punkte, p. 51 ff.), Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 
166), Wurm, Anger (rat. temp. p. 70 ff.), Billroth, Credner, Olshausen, Riickert, 
Wieseler, Reuss, Osiander, Hofmann, and others. See the commentary in op- 
position to the explaining away of these passages, according to which ‘‘the 
third journey of Paul to Corinth is a fiction’’ (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 199 ; 
comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, p. 139 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 339 
ff., ed. 2). But it cannot be definitely decided whether the second journey to 
Corinth is to be placed in the time of the three years’ stay at Ephesus (Schra- 
der, Billroth, Olshausen, Riickert, Wieseler, Reuss, and Hofmann ; Bleek is also 
inclined to this), or whether it is to be considered only as the return from a 
longer excursion during the eighteen months’ stay in Corinth (Baronius, Mi- 
chaelis, Schmidt, Schott, Anger ; favored by Bleek ; comp. Neander on ii. 1) ; 
for iva devtépav yapw éynre, ini. 15, testifies neither fornor against either of 
these views (see on this passage). Still by that very circumstance the latter view 
loses its support, and has, besides, against it the point that, as the first and 
third journeys were special journeys to Corinth, so also his second journey, to 
which he refers by tpirov rovro épyouat and the like, is most naturally to be re- 
garded as a special journey, and not asa mere return from a wider excursion. 
See, moreover, Wieseler, p. 239. The proposal to place the second journey to 
Corinth between our first and alost Epistle which preceded our second (Ewald, 
see § 1), finds, apart altogether from the lost letter being an hypothesis, no 
sufficient confirmation in the passages concerned, ii. 1, xii. 14, xilil. 1 f., and 
has i, 23 (obxérv) against it ; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ff, and 2 Cor. i, 15 f. 


The genuineness of our Epistle (see, after less certain indications in the 
apostolic Fathers and Justin, Irenaeus, Haer. ii. 7. 1, iv. 28. 3 ; Athena- 
goras, de resurr. p. 61, ed. Col. ; Clement, Strom. iv. p. 514, ed. Sylb. ; 


414 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Tertullian, de pudic. 13) is as internally certain and as unanimously attested 
and undisputed as that of the first ; in fact, we need hardly notice, even his- 
torically, the strange theory invented by Bolten and Bertholdt, that it was 
translated (by Timothy) from the Aramaic. 

The wnity of the Epistle has been contested by Semler and Weber ; while 
it has been most arbitrarily cut up into three letters by Weisse (see his Beitr. 
u. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 9). Semler (see Keggemann, praes. 
Semler, de duplict ep. ad Rom. append., Hal. 1767, and Semler, Paraphr. 
1776) cuts it up into the following three letters : (1) chap. i. vili., Rom. xvi., 
and 2 Cor. xiii. 11-13 ; (2) x. 1-xili. 10; (8) chap. ix., as a special leaf 
which was intended, not for Corinth, but for the Christians in Achaia. In 
opposition to this, see Gabler, de capp. ult. 1x.—xiil. poster. ep. P. ad Cor. ab 
cadem haud separand., Gott. 1782. Weber (de numero epp. P. ad Cor. rectius 
constituendo, 1798) was of opinion that there were originally two letters :— 
(1) chap. i.-ix. and xiii. 11-13 ; (2) chap. x. 1-xiii. 10. Similarly, also, 
von Greeve (in Royaards de.altera P. ad Cor, ep., Traj. ad Rhen. 1818), who, 
however, considers as the first letter only chap. i.—viii. In opposition to 
these attempts at dismemberment may be urged not only the whole body of 
the critical witnesses, but also the certainty that the abruptness of chap. ix. 
is only apparent, and that the contrasting tone of chap. x.—xiii. is easily ex- 
plained * by the altered mood of the apostle.—With regard to the originality 
of vi. 14-vii. 1, see on vi. 12, Remark. 


1 Hug, Hind. II. § 108, says very pertinent- whereas, in heaping shame and castigation 
ly : ‘‘ Who would on that account break up on the informer, in the parallel between 
the speech of Demosthenes pro Corona into him and Aeschines, words of bitter mock- 
two parts, because in the more general ery gush forth impetuously like a thunder- 
vindication calm and caution prevail; shower.” 


CHAP. I. Ald 


Havaov xpos Kopiv@iovs éxiotohy Sevrépa. 


A BK 8, min. have only rpoc Kopivfiove B., the most simple, and doubtless 
the oldest superscription. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 6. cite mapakadotpeba, brép TIS buov mapakAgoens, THC evepyoupuéevne Ev br0- 
povy tov avtav mabnudtov, dv Kai queig mdoxouev’ Kal q éATri¢ Huov BeBaia bréep 
tua’ elddrec k.T.2.] So Beza, ed. 3, 4, 5, Beng. and Griesb., following A C, min. 
Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Flor. Harl. Valg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast. Pel. 
Beda. But Elz. (following Hrasm. ed. 2!) : rig évepyouuévne év brouovg Tov aitov 
Tafnuatav ov kai ymel¢ Taoyouev’ cite Tapakanovucha, bTép THC buav TapaKkAjoews 
Kat owrnpiac’ Kal f éAri¢c Hu. Bed. brép buoy: eiddre¢ x.7.A, Finally, Lachm. Tisch. 
Scholz, and Riick. read, with Matth., after Erasm. ed. 1: nai 7 éAmi¢ Hu. Be. 
bzép budv immediately after macyouev, but in other respects with Elz., and have 
the support of BDEFGKLY, min. Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slav. It. Chrys. 
Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. Theophyl. Oec. The Recepta must be rejected on 
account of the want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between 
Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most thoroughly 
by Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 318 ff. But the former, sufficiently attested, 
appears to be the original, in so far as from it the rise of the others is easily 
and naturally explained. An immediate transition was made from the first 
mapakA. to the second; the intermediate words were left out, and brought’ in 
again afterwards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded 
thus :—1. Original form of ver. 6 asin Griesb. 2. First corruption: cite J 6A1B6- 
pela, brép THC Hu@v TapakAnsews, Ti¢ Evepyovpéevne Ev drow, TOV adTov TaAnu. Ov kK, 
netc macyouey’ Kal 7 gAric yuav BeBaia inép budv. 3. Erroneous restoration: etre 
0& OA1B6ueba . . . brép budv: cite Tapaxadovueba, drép THE buov mapakA, Another 
erroneous restoration (‘‘ ex judicio eclectico,’’ Beng. Appar.) is contained in the 
Received text. 4. The xa curnpiac, still wanting, was finally added, in part 
rightly only after the first tapaxd., in part wrongly only after the second rapaka. 
(B, 176), in part wrongly after both. — Ver. 8. trép rij¢ 64.] AC DEFG &, 
min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch. have rep) 7.04. So Lachm, Riick, But 
mept offered itself as more current. — jyiv] is wanting in preponderant witness- 
es. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Lachm. Riick. A superfluous gloss on 
yevou. — Ver. 10. kad pverac] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. 
Chrys. Ambrosiast. So Rick. But BC 8, 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. 
ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have kai ficerat. So Lachm., but in brackets. 
Thus the Recepta, reverted to even by Tisch., has certainly preponderating 
testimony against it ; still it retains the considerable attestation of D*** EI’ G 


1 Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading. 


416 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


K L, and most min. Vulg. Syr. p. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oec. Or. int. Jer., 
and the subsequent piceta: might very easily be written directly after «ai in- 
stead of Avera, so that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration of 
what was left out, the spurious xa? pvcerac in some cases remained, but in others 
was dropped without the genuine «ai pierac being put in its place. — Ver, 11. 
evyap. dxép Hudv] The reading ebyap. irép tuov, though preferred by Beng., 
recommended by Reiche, and adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and 
does not suit the sense. -— Ver. 12. drAdryts] A BC K &* min. Copt. Arm. 
Clem. Or. Damasc. have dyiotntt. So Lachm. Rick. Rightly; dmAdryri, 
though defended by Reiche and Tisch., must be considered as a gloss of more 
precise definition ; it was from our very Epistle well known and current, 
whereas dyiorn¢ was unfamiliar (only elsewhere in Heb. xii. 10). — Ver. 13. The 
first # is wanting in A, min. Bracketed by Riick. But appearing superfluous, 
and not being understood, it was omitted. — Ver. 16. dieAGeiv] A D* F G, 80, 
Copt. Chrys. Damasc.: amedMeiv. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by 
Lachm. and Riick. Rightly ; it was more natural to introduce the reminis- 
cence of 1 Cor. xvi. 5 than that of Rom. xv. 28. — Ver. 17. SovAduevoc| Elz. and 
Tisch. have BovAetouevoc, against preponderant evidence. Gloss in accordance 
with what follows. — Ver. 18. éyévero] Lachm. Scholz, Rick. Tisch. have éozv, 
as Griesb. also recommended, in accordance with a great preponderance of 
testimony. éyévero, Which Reiche defends, came in from ver. 19. — Ver. 20. 
kal év av7o| ABCFG&, min. vss. and Fathers have 06:6 rai dv’ aizov. So 
Lachm. Riick. The Recepta arose in this way: 06:6 fell out by an omission of 
the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then added to 0d.’ avrov after the 
previous év avT@ as a gloss, which accordingly came into the text. This altera- 
tion was the more natural, as the two definitions dv’ airod and dv’ 7udv might 
seem not to accord. The liturgical reference of the dujv does not appear a 
sufficient occasion for the insertion of 6:6, nor for the change from év ait@ into 
dv’ abrod, particularly after the év ait@ which went before and was left unglossed. 
This in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Reiche, Comment. 
crit. I. 331 ff. 


Vv. 1, 2. Address and greeting. — dca 622. Ocov] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. — kai 
T:u60.] His relation to this Epistle is the same as that of Sosthenes to the 
first Epistle : he appears, not as amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender 
of it. See on 1 Cor. i. 1. — 6 ddeAg.] as at 1 Cor. i. 1. — dv toi¢ dylow maior 
x.T.4.| Grotius: ‘‘ Voluit P. exempla hujus epistolae mitti ad alias in 
Achaia ecclesias.” So also Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, and others. But, in that 
case, would not Paul have rather written ody raic éxxAnoia racae ? Comp. 
Gal. i. 2. And are the contents of the Epistle suited for an encyclical des- 
tination ? No ; he means, in agreement with 1 Cor. i. 2, the Christians 
living outside of Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached them- 
selves to the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have been 
the sole seat of a church — the metropolis of the Christians in the province. 
The state of matters in Galatia was different. — Under Achaia we must, 
according to the sense then attached to it, understand Hellas and Pelopon- 
nesus. This province and that of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See 
on Acts xviii. 12.— Ver. 2. See on Rom. i, 7. 

Vv. 38-11. A conciliatory introduction, —an effusion of affectionate emotion 


CHAP. I., 3, 4. 417 


(comp. Eph. i. 3) out of the fulness of special and still recent experience. 
There is no hint of a set purpose in it ; and it is an arbitrary supposition, 
whether the purpose be found in an excuse for the delay of his journey 
(Chrysostom, Theophylact), or in a confirmation of his apostolic standing 
(Beza, comp. Calovius, Mosheim), or in an attestation of the old love, which 
Paul presupposes also on the part of the readers (Billroth), and at the same 
time in a slight alienation which had been suggested by his sufferings (Osi- 
ander). 

Ver. 3. ‘0 Ocd¢ x. mat. x.7.2.] God, who is at the same time father of Jesus 
Christ. See on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Rom. xv. 6. Against the connection of roi 
kupiov x.7.A. also with 6 Oeé¢ (Hofmann), see on Eph. i. 8. — 6 rarip rev olKtip- 
“ov| DTI *AN, z.e. the Father, whose fatherly frame of mind and disposi- 
tion is compassionateness,—the compassionate Father (wadcota idiov Oeov Kai 
éSaipetov Kal TH oboe. ovyKekAnpwuévov, Chrysostom). Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 8 
and Eph. i. 17. It is the qualitative genitive, such as we find in the lan- 
guage of the Greek poets (Seidl. ad Hlectr. 651 ; Herm. ad Viger. p. 890 f.). 
Riickert (comp. before him Theodorct) takes it as the genitivus effecti :. ‘* The 
Father from whom all compassion comes” (comp. xiii. 11 ; Rom. xv. 5, 13, 
al.). But, since oi«ripyot (comp. Plato, Polit. p. 805 B) is the subjective 
compassion (Tittm. Synon. 69 f.), it would have to be explained : ‘‘ The 
Father who works in us compassion, sympathy,” and this sense would be alto- 
gether unsuitable to the connection. On the contrary, tov olxtipy. is the 
specific quality of the Father, which dwells in Him just as the Father of 
Christ, and in consequence of which He is also Oed¢ rdon¢ rapaxa.; and this 
genitive is that of the effect which issues from the Merciful One: ‘‘ The 
compassionate Father and God who worketh every consolation.” 'This render- 
ing, differing from that of the first genitive, is demanded by ver. 4 (in 
opposition to Hofmann) ; comp. vii. 6; Rom. xv. 5. As to oixripuoi, see 
on Rom. xii. 1. Observe that the characteristic appellation of God in this 
passage is an artless outflow of the experience, which was still fresh in the 
pious heart of the apostle, vv. 8-10. (a@*) 

Ver. 4. ‘Hwac] Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean himself exclu- 
sively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, according to the 
context), although often only as quite subordinate, he speaks in the plural. 
He does not express himself communicative, but in the singular, where he 
gives utterance to his own personal conviction or, in general, to anything 
concerning himself individually (vv. 18, 15, 17, 23, ii. 1-10, 12, 18, vii. 4, 
7 ff., a/.). Hence the frequent interchange between the:singular and plu- 
ral forms of expression.’ Chrysostom already gives the force of the present 
mapakaaav correctly : ére oby arak, ovdé dic, GAAA JinveKOc TovTO Tot. . . dtd 
eltev 6 Tapakaddy, oby 6 Tapakadécac. —éri radon TH OAiber] concerning all our 
affliction. The collective sufferings are regarded as one whole. Afterwards, 


1 Even in the plural mode of expression, he expresses himself singuiariter or com- 
however, he has always himself and his own municativé. Hence the interchange of the 
relations primarily in view ; and, owing to two modes of expression in one sentence, 
the versatility of his mode of conception,it eg. xi. 6f. 
is often quite a matter of accident whether 


418 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


on the other hand. év xdon 0A.: in every affliction. éri marks the ethical 
foundation, z.e. here the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373. 
Comp. 2. Macc. vii. 5 f.; Deut. xxxii. 36. According to Riick., rapaxai. 
denotes the delivering, and hence he takes éxi of the circumstances : in. 
See Matthiae, p. 1370. But throughout the passage tapax. means to comfort ; 
and it is quite an open question, how the comforting takes place, whether by 
calming or by delivering. God did both in the apostle’s case. — ei¢ 76 divac- 
Oat x.7.A.| in order that we may be able, etc. For he, who for himself receiv- 
ed comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of being able 
to comfort others. And how important was this teleological view of his own 
sorrows for the apostolic calling ! ‘‘ Omnia sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae 
refert,” Grotius, (HH*) — rove év radon OAier| is erroneously and arbitrarily taken 
as equivalent to rdvrac rove év GAinbec (see Emmerling, Flatt, Rickert). It 
means : those to be found in every trouble, the all-distressed ; not : those to be 
found in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but év ravti OA1Bduevoz, iv. 8, 
vii. 5. — dvd tHe rapakd. «.7.2.] te. through communication of our own comfort, 
which we experience from God. This more precise determination of the sense 
is demanded both by the preceding mention of the purpose éi¢ 7d divacbar 
«.7.A., and by the airoi. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives 
the comfort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may again be conveyed 
to others by the receiver. But there is no analogy in the whole N. T. for 
this conception ; for Matt. x. 13 is merely a concrete illustration of the effi- 
cacy or non-efficacy of the eipfvy iuiv. — 7c] Attiacted, as in Eph. i. 6, iv. 
1, because one can say rapdk2yow rapaxareiv. See Gieseler in Rosenmiiller, 
Repert. II. p. 124 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted 
genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See Kiihner, ad 
Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5. —avroi] wpsi, for our own selves, in contrast to the others 
to be comforted. 

Ver. 5. Ground assigned for the 7¢ tapaxadobueba abrot ind T. Ocot. — repic- 
ceber eic juac| 7s abundant in relation to us, i.e. it is imparted to us above measure, 
ina very high degree. Comp. Rom. v. 15.—7d raOjuata tov Xpiotov| are 
not the sufferings for Christ’s sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be 
expressed by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Bill- 
roth, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann), in so far as every one who 
suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as Christ suffered. (1°) Comp. 
Matt. xx. 22 ; Phil. iii. 10; Col. i. 24; Heb. xii, 13% ia Pene ee eee 
also on Rom. vill. 17. Hence Cornelius & Lapide, Leum, and Riickert 
render correctly in substance: quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who 
render: ‘‘the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members: comp. de 
Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ continuing to suffer in 
His members is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Acts ix. 4, and is 
contrary to the idea of His exaltation. See on Col. i. 24.— did rov X.] 
through His indwelling by means of the Spirit. See Rom. viii. 9, 10; Eph. 
in. 17; Col. 1. 29, al. 

Vv. 6, 7. Aé] leading on to the gain, which the two, this affliction and 
this comforting, bring to the readers.—Re it that we are afflicted, we are afflicted 


OmAR Ie) Oy" te A419 


Sor the sake of your consolation and salvation ; it redounds to this, that you 
are to be comforted and advanced in the attainment of Messianic salvation. 
In how far? According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein, 
and many, including Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche: through the 
example of the apostle in his confidence towards God, etc. But the context 
has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth and Olshausen : ‘‘in 
so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, through which comfort and 
salvation come to you;” so also Hofmann. Riickert, without ground, 
gives up all attempt at explanation. Paul himself has given the explana- 
tion in ver. 4 by eic 7d divacbar jyuac rapaxadeiv x.t.A. Tence the sense of the 
definition of the aim izép tic bpdv rapakd. x. cwr.: ‘¢in order that we may be 
enabled to comfort you, when ye come into affliction, and to further your sal- 
vation. For this end we are put in a position by experience of suffering, as 
well as by that, which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the 
school of suffering (cite rapaxadobueba .7.2.). —irép tic bu. wapakAr. Tie évepy. 
K.TA. | 4.e. tn order to be able to give you the comfort, which is efficacious, etc. 
Paul does not again add x. owrnpiac here, because he has still to append to 
TapakAgoewc & More precise and detailed explanation, after which it was im- 
practicable to bring in kai cwrnpiac ; and it could be left out all the more 
readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representation. —ri¢ évepyouye. 
év trou. K.T.A.| which is efficacious in patient endurance of the same sufferings, 
which we also suffer. évepyovy., asin the whole N. T. (iv. 12; Rom. vii. 5 ; 
eee. 11,20 , Col. 1. 29; 1 Thess. 1. 13.; 2 Thess. i. 7; Jas. v. 
16) is middle, not passive (8 Esdr. ii. 20; Polyb. i. 13. 5, ix. 12. 8), as it is 
here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Piscator, Cal- 
vin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Bill- 
roth, Riickert, Ewald.’ For the distinction between active (personal efficacy) 
and middle in Paul, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 323]. —év tropuovy] denotes 
that by virtue of providing which the rapaxAnocc is efficacious. It is therefore 
the working of the Christian zapdkanowc, which we experience when 7 6Aipi¢ 





drouovyy Kkatepyavera, Rom. v. 3.-—tOv aitdv radnudtwv, Ov k.t.2.] In so far, 
namely, as they are likewise sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed 
to the readers are meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of 
Paul (and Timothy) (év k. jueic rdoyouev). Billroth, Olshausen, Neander 
understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far as these were jointly 
felt by all believers as their own in virtue of their fellowship of love with 
him. Compare Chrysostom on ver. 7, also de Wette, who refers it partly 
to the foreboding, partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then, 
Paul would have been utterly illogical in placing the xai before jyeic ; for 
it would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered (with Paul 
through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this exposition is, is shown, 
besides, by ver. 4. It does not appear from this passage, we may add, that 
at that time the Corinthians had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s 


1The passive interpretation would be Matt. x. 22; Jas. i. 12); but nowhere is it 
necessary with the reading of Lachmann, conceived and represented as working in 
Since salvation is the goal of the state of patience, and the like. This tells against 
grace, and hence is wrought (Phil. ii. 12, 13; that reading. 


420 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


sake. Paul has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the 
Suture, as the following kai 7» éAric x.7.A. proves. Comp. on xiii. 11.—xkai 7 
tan. hu. BeB. bx. du.] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, with Griesbach 
and others, since eidérec is connected not with rdoyouev, but with 7 éAric juav. 
The contents of ver. 6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience 
undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the readers 
for the future, that what is said by eizte 02 GAiBoueda. . . taoxouev will be. 
verified in their case in afflictions which would come on them for Christ’s 
sake, so that they would in that case obtain from the apostle, out of his ex- 
perience of suffering and consolation, the comfort which through patience 
is efficacious in such sufferings. Therefore he continues : and our hope is 
Jirm on account of you. ixép éuév does not belong either simply to 7 éAr. iu., 
or simply to BeBaia (Billroth), but to the whole thought of 7 éAr. iu. Bef. 
On ixép, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and the contrary expression 
doBeiodat brép twoc, propter aliquem in metu esse. — eidérec| refers, according 
to a common anacolouthon, to 7 éAmi¢ ju., In which jueic is the logical 
subject.* See Stallbaum, ad. Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81 
A ; Fritzsche, Dissert. Il. p. 49. Comp. on Eph. iv. 2; Col. ii. 2. It in- 
troduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed : for we know 
that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are sharers also of the consolation. 
To have a share in the sufferings, and also in the consolation, to be excepted 
neither from the one nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Chris- 
tian. Paul knows this in regard to his readers, and he grounds on it the 
firm hope for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings, 
they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation ; to impart which 
consolation he is himself qualified (ver. 4) and destined (ver. 6) by his own 
experience of suffering and consolation. Accordingly, xowwvol k.t.2. 18 Con- 
textually not to be explained of an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that 
in the sufferings and consolation of Paul (Gorep yap Ta raShuata Ta Huétepa 
tuétepa eivar vouilete, obTW Kal THY TapaKAna THY juetépav tuetépav, Chrysostom. 
Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and others), but ra ra¥Auara 
and 7 tapdakdAyore are to be taken generically. In both kinds of experience 
the Christian has a share ; he must suffer ; but he is not excluded from the 
consolation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it. (3°) 

Vv. 8-11. Out of his own (and Timothy’s) experience of suffering and 
comfort, Paul now informs his readers of something special which had 
lately befallen the two in Asia. The fact in itself he assumes as known to 
them, but he desires to bring to their knowledge the consoling help of God in 
it. There is nothing to indicate a reference to an utterance of the church 
(Hofmann) concerning the event. 

Ver. 8. Ov y. 062. iu. ayv.] See on Rom. i. 18, xi. 25; 1 Cor. xii. 1; 1 
Thess. iv. 138. —irép rie O2iW.] regarding (de) the affliction, concerning the 
same. See Bernhardy, p. 244 ; Kiihner, Il. § 547, 2. —év rH ’Aoia] as in 1 
Cor. xvi. 19. What particular affliction is meant, and at what place it hap- 


1 With Lachmann’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald*to the Corinthians 
(Up@rv) : since you know, ete. 


‘ GAP Ts 500s 421 


pened, we do not know. ‘The readers, who must have known it, may have 
learnt it from Titus or otherwise. Perhaps it was the avtiKeiyevor roAdoi, 1 
Cor. xvi. 9, who had prepared for him the extraordinary trial. The tumult 
of Demetrius in Ephesus, Acts xix. 23 ff. (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Corne- 
lius a Lapide, Michaelis, Vater, Schrader, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, and 
others), is not to be thought of, since Paul was not in personal danger 
there, Acts xix. 30, and immediately after the tumult set out on his. journey 
to Greece, Acts xx. 1. Heumann, Emmerling, Riickert, Bisping, suggest 
a severe illness. Against this it may be urged that, according to ver. 5, it 
must have been a wd@yua tov Xprorov (for the special experience must be 
held as included under the general one previously spoken of), as well as 
that Paul speaks in the plural. Both grounds tell at the same time against 
Hofmann, who thinks of the shipwreck, xi. 25, to which, in fact, év r. ’Acia, 
ver. 8, is not suitable, even if we ventured to make a mere stranding on the 
coast out of the incident. Besides, the reading ptera:, ver. 10, militates 
against this. — 67: caf?’ irepB. x.7.A.] that we were burdened to the uttermost 
beyond strength, a statement of that which, in regard to the affliction men- 
tioned, is not to be withheld from the readers. xa? trepBoany defines the 
degree of éBap. ixép divau. See Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 1 f. (‘‘ut calamitates 
vires meas egregie superarent”). The view which regards the two expres- 
sions as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, and many, includ- 
ing Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann): so heavy that it went beyond our 
ability, would place alongside of each other the objective greatness of the 
suffering and its disproportion to the subjectivity (see de Wette): still the 
position of éBap., as well as the want of a «ai before érép, is more favourable 
to the view which takes éBap. iz. div. together; and this is also confirmed 
by the subjectivity of the following dove é£arop. x.7.A. The suffering made 
itself palpable to him as a recpacpude¢ ob« avOperevoc (1 Cor. x. 13). Riickert, 
moreover, has no ground for thinking that éfap40. is inappropriately used 
of persecutions, attempts to murder, and the like, and that izép divaycy is 
also opposed to it. Bapic, Bapéw, and Bapivw are used of all troubles by 
which we feel ourselves burdened. See the passages from Homer in Dun- 
can, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 202 ; comp. Plat. Crit. p. 48 C ; Soph. Vrach. 151 ; 
Theocr. xvii. 61, and expressions like BaptyuoyOoc, Bapbrotpuoc, Bapurevbjc, 
Bapvdaivev, and the like. — dore éarop. x.7.2.] 30 that we became quite per- 
plexed even (kai) in regard to life, placed in the highest perplexity even with 
regard to the preservation of our life. é« strengthens the simple verb, iv. 
8. Polyb. i. 62. 1, iii. 47. 9, 48.4. The genitive (rot (7) is the usual 
case in Greek with azopeiv, in the sense of having lack of something ; seldom 
is it found in the sense of being perplered about something (Dem. 1380, 4: 
Plat. Conv. p. 193 E). 

Ver. 9. ’AA24] is the simple but, the contrast of the negation contained in 
éEaTopnOyvat, Which contrast, nevertheless, no longer depends on dare: the 
independent position makes it all the weightier. There is theretfore the less 
ground for taking 4/24 as nay indeed, with Hofmann, and making it point 
to the following clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause qavroi k.7.A. 

‘would be arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate—viz., ‘‘if 


422 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to the end, that we,” etc. — abroi év éavroic] 
Jor our own selves in our own consciousness—i.e, apart from what might take 
place from without, through divine interference, to cause a change in our 
position. This certainty in their own heart, however, could not but exclude 
all self-confidence ; hence iva pi merowl-dre¢ x.7.A. — ardxpyal not equivalent 
to katdxpyua (So most, following Hesychius), but to. responsum (Vulgate, 
Billroth), the award, decision. So in Suidas (see Wetstein) 
and J osephus, Antt. xiv. 17 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well : ry widov, 


THY Kplolv, TAY MpocdoKiay TOLAabTHY yap HolEl TA Tpadyuata dwvhy’ TovabTyY aT é- 





Comp. aroxpiorc. 


Kplocv édidov Ta ovuBdavta, b71 aroVavotyeda TavtTwo.—As to éoyqK., Observe 
the perfect habuimus, which represents the situation as present. Comp. on 
tom. v. 2. —iva py x.t.4.| divinely appointed aim of the airol. . . éoyqnapev. 
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 15. (K*) —r@ éyeipovre rove vexp.| 1s to be referred not only to 
the future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in general, 
as that which is exclusively God’s doing. This characteristic of God is the 
ground of the confidence. For the awaker of the dead must also be able to 
rescue from the danger of death (ver. 10). Comp. Rom. iv. 17 ; Heb. xi. 
19. See on Rom. lc. ‘‘ Mira natura fidei in summis difficultatibus nullum 
exitum habere visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human é£azo- 
py diva, ver. 8, could yet say of himself, iv. 8 : ov« éaropobuevor. 

Ver. 10. Result of this confidence, as well as the hope grounded thereon 
for the future. — éx t7AuK. Gavarov| out of so great death. Paul realizes to him- 
self the special so mighty death-power which had threatened him (and Timo- 
thy), and by the expression pieobaz éx Pavarov (see examples in Wetstein, p. 178) 
makes death appear as a hostile power by which he had been encompassed. 
Oavarog does not signify pertd of death (as most. say, even Emmerling and | 
Flatt), but it represents that sense. Comp. xi. 23.— Kai pierac] The 6riuc, 
which had been survived in Asia, therefore still continued in its after-effects, 
which even extended over to Macedonia (perhaps by continued plots against 

heir lives), and Paul and Timothy were still continuing’ to experience the 
rescuing power of God. (1*)— #Arixauer] have set our hope. See Herm. ad 
Viger. p. 748 ; -Ktihner, IL p. 71; comp. 1 Cor. xv.) 103 eae 
17; John vi. 45.— dre x. éte picerar] that he will rescue (us) even further, 
namely, é« tyA«. Oavdrov, in the continuing danger from the Asiatic enemies 
which was still to be apprehended in the future. In the fact that Paul 
speaks of a present, nay, of a future rescue, Riickert finds a support for his 
opinion regarding a dangerous illness (not yet fully overcome) ; see on ver. 
8. But could no machinations pass over from Asia to Macedonia? and 





1 Hofmann reads the passage : cat pucerat, 
According- 
ly, he takes the first cat as an also, begin- 
ning an independent sentence. With this 
expressive reference to the future Paul 
looks forward to the wide woyages still be- 
fore him... In opposition to this we have, 
from a critical point of view, the facts that 
ote before cat ért is Wanting only in B D* 64, 
aud that it is supported by preponderating 


els Ov NATikapmev, Kal ETL pYoETaL, 


witnesses, even by those which have the 
reading pvceta: for pvetar, as Cand 8%; and. 
from an exegetical point of view, the fact 
that the repetition cai éru pvoerac amounts 
to a tautology without strengthening the 
thought in the least: for ev follows as a 
matter of course from the pvcera: already 
said. Besides, against the whole reference 
to the shipwreck, see on ver. 8. 


CHAS Ty LT 423 
could not these be recognized by Paul as the more dangerous, in so far as 
they were more secret? Comp. Acts xx. 3. 

Ver. 11. A trustful and conciliatory mention of the intercessions of the 
readers, This is regarded as not so much conditioning (Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, 
Riickert, and others), as rather yurthering the kai ére picerac : ‘‘ he will also 
still save us, since ye also are helpful together for us,” etc. On the idea of the 
efficacy of intercession, comp. especially Phil. i. 19; Rom. xv. 30 f.—The 
reference of the cuv in cuvurovupy. is to the apostle’s own work of prayer, with 
which that of the readers is joined by way of help: similar help on the part 
of other churches is just hinted by the cai before tudv.—irép judv] on our 
behalf. <A transposition for rj defoe: ixép yu. would indeed be grammatically 
possible (Bernhardy, p. 461), but its in the highest degree superfluous (in 
opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Schulz, Rosenmiiller). — iva ék 70AA. rpoodr. 
x.T.4.] divinely-appointed aim of the cvvuroupy. «.t.A. The correlations are 
to be noted : 1. & roAAdv mpocdr. and 76 cic Wuac yap.; 2. did TOAAGY 
and irép yuav; 3. ydpcoua and evyaptotnéy. Accordingly, there 
stand parallel to one another é« 7022. mpoodr. and then dia reAdAav ; as also rd 
ele nuac yapioua and then irép judy. Hence, it is to be connected and taken 
thus : that from many countenances for the gift of grace made to us by means of 
many thanks may be rendered on our behalf. Paul means that the thanksgiv- 
ing for his (and Timothy’s) rescue (i.e. 7d ei¢ ju. yap.*) is not to be offered to 
God by himself (and Timothy) alone, but that it is to be arendering of thanks 
made for him by many through the mediation of many. The many are the 
same in ék TOAA. tpochr. as in dia TOAAGY ; but there they are conceived of as 
those who give thanks, and in d:a 7. as those who have been the procuring 
means of the thanksgiving, in so far as through their prayer they have aided in 
obtaining the apostles rescue.* xpéowrov, according to-the use of the later 
Greek (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 880; Schweigh., Lev. Polyb. p. 540 ; 
Wahl, Clav. Apocr. p. 480), is taken as person by Luther and most others 
(already in codd. of the Italic version). But it is nowhere used thus in 
the N. T., not even in passages like Jude 16; and, if Paul had had 

_ person in mind, there would have been no motive for choosing éx instead of 

Hence we must abide by the literal signification, cowntenance (Billroth, 

Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann) : the expression éx 7o0AA. rpoodr. is pictorial, for 

on the merry countenance the feeling of gratitude is displayed (Prov. xv. 
30) ; it is mirrored therein, and goes out from it and upward to God in 

the utterance of thanksgiving. (m*) Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 53, in the 


sO 
ViTO. 


1 Not the apostolic office (Ewald, Osiander), 
which here lies far from the context. So 
also Hofmann: the gift of God, to preach 
Christ to those who do not yet know Him. 
In the ordinary interpretation, there was 
not the least need of a demonstrative : the 
article and «cis nuas is from the context de- 
monstrative enough. 

2Tt was quite unsuitable, and contrary 
to the construction purposely carried out 
by the correlata stated above, to take é« 


moAA. tpogwm, Or Sua TOAA. aS neuter, and 
either to explain the former, ex multis re- 
spectibus (Bengel, comp. Melanchthon—not 
even justifiable in the usage of the lan- 
guage), or the latter, prolixe (Castalio : ‘‘in- 
gentes gratiae,’’ Wolf, Clericus, Semler, 
Storr, Rosenmiiller). Comp. Luther. So 
also Hofmann takes éca moda, ‘ abundant 
thanksgiving.’? The Vulgate renders right- 
ly: ‘“‘ per multos.” 


424 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


same way rightly joins é« roAa. mpoodr. as well as dia 702A. with ebyap., but 
he takes é« 702A. zp. of those who have besought the rescue and have thereby 
become the causers of the thanksgiving, and d:d 70226 of the thanksgivers 
themselves. So also Neander. But by this view justice is not done to the 
mediating sense of did, and the pictorial reference of tpocdrwy (see above) 
can, according to the text, be found only in the act of thanksgiving itself. 
It is obvious from what has already been said, that neither can dud 7oAA. be 
joined to 76 eic¢ ju. yapioua (Theophylact and others, Billroth, Olshausen, 
Osiander, Kling), nor can éx woAA. rpocéx. be connected with 76 eic wu. yap. 
as if it stood : rd ée 04d. mpoodm. eic jude yépona (Ambrosiaster, Valla, Beza, 
Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including Flatt, Fritzsche, Diss., 
Riickert, de Wette). Only on our view does the simple construction, as 
given by the order of the words, remain without dislocation, and the mean- 
ing of the words themselves uninjured. Whether, further, in é« roAA. poodr. 
the ro2A6v is masculine (Hofmann and Vulgate, ‘‘ex multorum facie”) or 
neuter, cannot be decided. —irép judrv| on our behalf, superfluous in itself, 
but suitable to the fulness of the representation.—The time in which the 
thanksgiving is to happen is after the beginning of the picera, not on the 
last day (Ewald).—The passive expression evyapioreiovac (comp. Hipp. Ep. 
p. 1284, 31) is conceived like ayapioreioba (Polyp. xxiii. 11. 8), to experience 
ingratitude, to be recompensed with ingratitude. Comp. Buttman, newt. 
Gr. p. 180 [E. T. 148]. 

Ver. 12. The apostle now begins the vindication of himself, at first in 
reference to the purity of his walk in general (ver. 12), then in reference to 
his honesty in writing (vv. 18, 14), and afterwards specially in reference to 
the changing of his plans for the journey (vv. 15-24). — yap] Ground as- 
signed for the confidence uttered in ver. 11, that the readers would help 
him by their intercession in the manner denoted : for we boast, according to the 
witness of our conscience, to have made ourselves worthy of your help. — xabyyore 
is not equivalent to cabynua, materies gloriandi (so most, but in no passage 
rightly, see on Rom. iv. 2), but we should interpret : For this our boasting 
(which is contained in ver. 11) is the testimony which our conscience furnishes 
that we, etc. In other words: This our boasting is nothing else than the ex- 
pression of the testimony of our conscience, that, etc.; hence no aicyivecba axd 
xavyjoewc (Isa. xii. 13) can take place. The contents of this testimony (é7z 
x.7.A.) Shows how very much the xatyyore of Paul is a xavyaoba tv kvpio 
(1 Cor. i. 81). Accordingly, airy is to be taken together with 7) xabynore juov 
(comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9 : 4 éoveia budv aity); Td wapripiov K.T.A. 1s the predicate, 
which is introduced by éori, and érv «.7.4. is the contents of the testimony. 
By the plain simplicity of this explanation we obviously exclude the view 
that atry is preparative, and that it is to be referred either to 1d papripiov 
(Luther and most), or, more harshly, with Hofmann, to érv «.7.4., because in | 
that case rd wapripiov x.t.2. is made an interpolated apposition. — év dyséryte 
(see the critical remarks) xai eiAuxp. Oecd] Oeod is not used superlatively, as 
Emmerling would still take it. Further, it neither denotes what is well- 
pleasing to God (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Rickert, Reiche), nor what 
avails before God (Calvin, Beza, Estius, Billroth, and others, following 


CHAP. I., 13. 425 


Theophylact, nor what is like God (Pelagius), nor the God-like (Osiander), 
which is God’s manner (Hofmann), but the moral holiness and purity estab- 
lished by God through the influence of the divine grace, as the following ovx 
év o0$. capk., aAW év ydpite Scot proves.’ So also Olshausen, de Wette, 
Kling, Neander, Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 296]. Comp. dcxcacoobvy Scot, Rom. i. 
17, cipfvy Oeov, Phil. iv. 7, andthe like. The rare word dyér7c¢ is found also in 
2 Macc. xv. 2; Heb. xii. 10; Schol. Arist. Thesm. 301. Regarding eijuxp., 
see on 1 Cor. v. 8. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 A.— ox év cod. capk. 
Gan’ év yap. Ocov| is not to be placed ina parenthesis, for it is parallel to 
the previous év dyiér. x. eiAckp. Ocov, and gives negative and positive infor- 
mation about it. The codia cap. is the merely human wisdom, the wisdom 
which is not the work of the divine influence (of the Holy Spirit), but of 
human nature itself unenlightened and unimproved, guided by the sinful 
lust in the odpé. See on 1 Cor. i. 26. — év ydpiti Oeov] is not to be explained 
of miracles (Chrysostom), nor yet with Grotius : ‘‘cum multis donis spirit- 
ualibus,” but without any limitation of the influence of the diwine grace, under 
which Paul lived and worked.—The thrice repeated use of év denotes the 
spiritual element in which his course of life moved (Eph. ii. 8 ; 2 Pet. i1. 
18). —év Tw kéouw]| t.e. among profane humanity. This serves by contrast 
to make the holiness of his walk and conversation more prominent. Comp. 
Phil. ii. 15. — zpdc tuac] denotes the direction of his association, a iter- 
course with you. See Bernhardy, p. 265. More than with others, he had 
established such a relation with the Corinthians (hence zepicoor.). 

Ver. 13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious (ver. 10) 
meploo. dé Tp. buac (ver. 12), in so far as it might be suspected as not honour- 
ably meant, he asserts his candour in writing, which must have been assailed 
by his opponents (comp. x. 10), who probably maintained, ‘‘ His letters to 
us are not the expression of his genuine inmost opinion !” — Lor nothing else 
do we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also understand ; ¢.e. in 
our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our genuine opinion, but it agrees 
exactly with what the reading of the same, or your acquaintance with our 
mode of thinking and character, says to you. Comp. Theodoret. On ypd- 
dev in its reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1 Cor. v. 11. Ac- 
cording to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought : ‘‘ I cannot do other- 
wise, I must write thus.” But Paul is making an appeal to the readers. — 
aan %| praeterquam, nist. For examples in which the previous negative sen- 
tence has also aAAoc, see Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 45 ; Heindorf, ad Prot. 
p- 354 B; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 36 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 5. The mode 
of expression depends on a blending of the two constructions—oi« dAda . 
Gara and ov dAaa. . . 7; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 81 B; Kiihner, U. 
p. 488. — a avaywwéoxere, 7 x. éxcy.| This latter 7 is in no connection with the 
former, in which case it could not but have stood @% avay., 7) kal éxvy. This 


1 With this fall tothe ground also the difficulty regarding éy6r., that Paul talks 
scruples of Riickert against the word of his purity as teacher, is also untenable. 
ayvoTntt, which he either wishes to take abu- Iie certainly speaks of his entire conduct, 
sive, like the Latin sanctitas, integrity, or not merely of his teaching. 
conjectures in-its stead ayvorynre. Reiche’s 


426 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in opposition to Fritzsche’s way of taking it : ‘‘neque enim alia ad vos per- 
scribimus, guam aut ea. . . aut ea quae,” etc. avayrveoxewy is to read, as it is 
usually in the Attic authors, and always in the N. T., not to understand, as 
Calvin, Estius, Storr, ' following the Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this 
meaning often in classical Greek (Hom. J7. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206 ; 
Xen. Anab. v. 8.6 ; Pind. Jsthm. ii. 85 ; Herodian, vii. 7; comp. also Prayer of 
Manass. 12). —% Kai éxvyw.] or also (without communication by letter) wnder- 
stand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily : ‘‘ vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam 
aut tertiam lectionem, attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Riickert : 
‘‘and doubtless also understand.” Quite against 7 kai, which stands also 
opposed to the view of Hofmann : Paul wishes to say that he does not write 
in such a way, that they might understand something else than he means in 
his words. In this case we should have had xai only, since 7 «ai points to 
something else than to the reading, with which what he has written agrees. 
—The assimilation of the expressions avayrv. and érvyw. (comp. ill. 2) can- 
not be imitated in German, but in Latin approximately : legitis aut etiam 
intelligitis. Comp. on Acts vill. 30; Plat. Hp. II. p. 312 D. —éArifa dé 
x.T.A.] The object to émyvéceobe 18 bre Rabynua budv éouev x.7.A., and Kaboc Kai 
émeyv. Hu. ard uép. is an inserted clause: ‘‘I hope, however, that you will 
understand even to the end,—as you have understood us in part,—that we 
are your boast,” etc. We might also consider érz cabynua k.T.A. aS a nearer 
object to éréyvere buac (Estius, Rosenmiiller, Billroth, Riickert, de Wette) ; 
but, since in this way émyvécecbe remains without an object (Billroth sup- 
plies: ‘‘that I think the same as I write ;” comp. Riickert ; Osiander : 
‘all my doing and suffering in its purity”), the above mode of connection 
is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, Luther, Grotius, and others, also Ols- 
hausen (Osiander doubtfully), take 67: as for, stating the ground for kafdc x. 
éxéyv. yu. and wép. But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still 
more wanting, since from the general xabynua duov éouev x.t.A. no inference 
to the éréyvure nua restricted by ad uépove 18 warranted ; the reason assigned 
would not be suitable to ad uépove. The connection which runs on simply 
is unnecessarily broken up by Ewald holding ver. 13 and ver. 14 on to 
pépovg aS a parenthesis, so that 67, ver. 14 (that), joins on again to ver. 12. 
— we téAove] does not mean till my death (Hofmann), but tél the end, 7.e. till 
the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8, xv. 51 f. ; 
Heb. iii. 6.— Ver. 14. xafoc x. éxéyv. jude compares the future, regarding 
which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding which he knows. And therefore 
he adds a limitation in keeping with the truth, azd uépove (comp. Rom. xi. 
25) ; for not all the Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite. 
against the usage of the language, takes ad pépove ef time, inasmuch as the 
apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present was only a part of what he 
had to live with them. In that case Paul would have written éw¢ apt: in con- 
trast to éw¢ téAove. Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of 
knowledge, guodammodo (comp. ii. 5), with which Paul reproaches the readers, 


1 Calvin thinks avay.v. and émycv. are dis- makes the difference: ‘‘ et recognoscitis an- 
tinguished as agnoscere and vrecognoscere. tiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscitis recentia.”’ 
So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius 


CHAP. I., 15, 16. 4AQ7 


O¢ uy TavTEeAwe aTwoapévove TAG Kat’ avTov yeysvnuévac diaBoAdc, Theodoret. But 
a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to the connection ; and certainly the 
readers to whom éréyvore applies had not only understood him quodammodo, but 
wholly and decidedly, that, etc. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his 
cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. Comp. Chrys- 
ostom, according to whom a7 uépovg is added from modesty ; also Theophylact, 
according to whom Paul is thinking of the imperfect exhibition of his virtue. 
But how could the readers conjecture this ! — 671 cabynua x.t. A. | that weredound 
Sor glory (i.e. for the object of kavyaoba) to you, even as you tous on the day of 
the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day that you have had us 
as teachers, and it will be to our honour that we have had you as disciples. 
Comp. 1 Thess, ii. 19 f. ; Phil. ii. 16. With how much winning tact the 
addition xd@arep xk. buei¢ juav Suppresses all appearance of self-exaltation ! 
G¢ pabyraic buotipore dvakeyduevog ovTw¢ éFtodler Tov Adyov, Chrysostom. — év rf 
juépa Tt. Kup. Iyoov|- belongs to the whole ér katynua. . . bueicg yudv, not, 
as Riickert arbitrarily thinks, to xa@arep x. du. 7juav merely (so Grotius, Ca- 
lovius, and others) ; nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to Katy. 
buav éouev. 

Vv. 15, 16. Kai ratty tH reroif.] and in consequence of this confidence, viz. 
Tu éwe TéAove émcyv. K.T.A. In Vv. 18, 14. eroityoig (ill. 4, Vill. 22, x. 2; 
Eph, iii. 12 ; Phil. iii. 4 ; Joseph. Bell. i. 3. 1) is later Greek. See Eusta- 
thius, ad Od. iii. p. 114, 41; Thom. Mag. p. 717; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
294 f. —éBovdduny| Paul entertained the plan for his journey, set down in 
ver. 16, before the composition of our first Epistle, and he had communi- 
cated it to the Corinthians (whether in the first letter now lost, or other- 
wise, we know not). But before or during the composition of our first 
Epistle he altered this plan (as we know from 1 Cor. xvi. 5) to this extent, 
that he was not now to go first to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and from 
thence back to Corinth again (ver. 16), but through Macedonia to Corinth. 
The plan of travel, 1 Cor. xvi. 5, was accordingly not the first (Baur) ; comp. 
Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.), but the one already altered, which altera- 
tion was ascribed to the apostle as indecision. This is intelligible enough 
from the antagonistic irritation of their minds, and does not require us to 
presuppose an expression in the alleged intermediate Epistle (Klépper, p. 
21 f.). Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius make the apostle say : I 
had, when I wrote to you 1 Cor. xvi. 5, the unexpressed intention to arrive 
still earlier than I promised, and to reach you even sooner (immediately on 
the journey towards Macedonia). Quite a mistaken view, since such a 
mere thought would not have been known to his opponents, and no excuse 
for his fickleness could therefore have been engrafted on it. — rpérepov] be- 
longs to rpo¢ imac éAbeiv :1 I intended to come to you jirst of all,—not, as I 
afterwards altered my plan, to the Macedonians first, and then from them 
to you. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rosenmiiller and 
Rickert, connect mpér. and éSova., which, however, on the one hand is 


1The position of mpérepov immediately and is therefore to be preferred, makes no 
after é8ovA. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ritick- difference in this respect. 
ert), Which has preponderating evidence, 


428 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


opposed to the sense (for Paul cannot say, ‘‘I intended formerly to come 
to you,” since his intention is still the same), and on the other would not 
accord with iva deur. yap. éy.; for not the zporepov éBovaAdpunrv, but the rpé- 
tepov Tpd¢ buac £AGetv, was to bring in its train a devrépa yapic.— wa devré- 
_ pav yapw éynre| devtépav corresponds ingeniously to the rpérepov: in order that 
you might have a second benefit of grace. By yapw is meant a divine bestowal of 
grace, with which Paul knew his coming to be connected for the church ; for 
to whatever place he came in his official capacity, he came as the imparter of 
divine yapic, Rom. i. 11; comp. xv. 29. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, 
including Kypke, Emmerling, Flatt, and Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
p-. 622), hold that yapic is equivalent to ydpa (and hence this is actually the 
reading of B L, some min., and Theodoret). Certainly ydpic also means 
pleasure, joy, and is, as in Tob. vii. 18, the opposite of Atwy (Eur. Hel. 661, 
and more frequently in Pindar ; see Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 1191 ; also 
in Plato, Ast, Lev. III. p. 588), but never in the N. T. This sense, besides, 
would be unsuitable to the apostle’s delicate and modest style of expression 
elsewhere. Nor, again, is a benefit on the part of the apostle meant (Grotius, 
Rosenmiiller, Schrader, Billroth, comp. also Hofmann), because the expres- 
sion is only in keeping with his affection and humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10) 
if a divine display of grace is meant. The comparison with 1 Cor. xvi. 3 is 
therefore not to the point, because there a ydpe¢ is named, of which the 
readers were givers. But what does he mean by devrépay yap? Many 
answer with Estius: ‘‘ut ex secundo meo adventu secundam acciperetis 
gratiam, qui dudum accepistis primam, quando primum istuc veniens ad 
fidem vos converti.” Comp. Pelagius, Calvin, Wolf, Mosheim, Bengel, 
Emmerling. But against this it may be urged : (1) historically, that Paul 
certainly had been already twice in Corinth before our two Epistles (see 
Introd. § 2); and (2) from the connection, that the devrépa yapic in this 
sense can by no means appear as an aim conditioned by the xpérepov ; for 
even adater coming would have had a devrépa ydpic in this sense as its 
result. This second reason is decisive, even if, with Schott, Hrdrterung, 
etc., p. 58 ff., and Anger, rat. temp. p. 72 f., we were to set aside the 
former by the supposition : ‘‘apostolum intra annum illum cum dimidio, 
quem, quum primum Corinthi esset, ibi transegit, per breve aliquod tem- 
poris spatium in regiones vicinas discessisse ; sic enim si res se habuit, 
Paulus, etsi dis ad Corinthios venerat, ita ut in secunda, quam iis misit, 
epistola adventum tertiwm polliceri posset : tamen, quoniam per totum illud 
intervallum Corinthi potissimum docuerat, simile beneficium, quod in itinere 
seriore in eos collocaturus erat, jure secundum appellavit,” Anger, lc. p. 73. 
The right solution results from ver. 16, which is joined on by the epexe- 
getical «az, viz., that the devrépa yapic appears as setting in through the 
madi ard Maxed. éAfeiv mpd¢ tude. Paul had intended on his projected 
journey to visit Corinth twice, and had therefore proposed to himself to 
come to the Corinthians jirst of all (not first to the Macedonians), in order 
that they in this event might have a second yapic on his return from Mace- 
donia (the first ydpic they were to have on his journey thither). From this 
it is at once obvious: (1) how superfluous is the linguistically incorrect 


CPAP EL, « Lt, 429 


supposition that devrépav is here equivalent to duxafv, as Bleek and Neander, 
following Chrysostom and Theodoret,’ take it ; (2) how erroneous is the 
opinion of Riickert, that iva devt. yapw éxyre is put in a wrong place, and 
should properly only come behind éaveiv rpic¢ tude, ver. 16. No; according 
to the epexegetical xai, ver. 16, d’ iuav areAdeiv cig Maxed. serves to give 
exact and clear information as parallel to the rpérepov rpd¢ tude éADeiv, and 
then kal wad adxd Mak. éAveiv rpdc tuac as parallel to the iva devrép. xapw 
éynte. Comp. Baur, I. p. 338, ed. 2. 

‘Ver. 17. Wishing this therefore (according to what has just been said), did 
I then behave thoughtlessly ? Was this proposal of mine made without duly 
taking thought for its execution ? jr: supposes a negative answer, as always, 
in which case dpa (meaning : as the matter stands) makes no alteration, such 
as the suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Sucha sense, 
as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, which is foreign here, 
could only be suggested by the context, and would have nothing to Co with 
dpa (in opposition to Hartung, whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 176 f. —rH éagpia| The article marks the thoughtlessness not as 
that with which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth, 
Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more pre- 
cisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtlessness as such in 
general, in abstracto: have I then made myself guilty of thoughtlessness ? 
éAadpia belongs to the substantives in -psa formed late from adjectives in 
-po¢. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 343. For the ethical sense (wantonness), 
comp. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 195, and éAagpédc in Polyb. vi. 56. 11 ; éadpédvooc, 
Phocylides in Stob. Hor. app. ili. 7. —7 & Bovdebowat, kata capa Bovdebouac] 
# is not aut (Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann, after the Vulgate and 
most expositors) but an; for without any interrogation the relation of the 
two sentences is: Vy proposal was not thoughtless, unless it should be the case 
that I form my resolves kata capa. See Hartung, II. p. 61.— Mark the 
difference between éypycaunv as aorist (historical event) and Poviedouar as 
present (behaviour generally). —-Kara cdpxa] according to the flesh, after the 
standard of the odpé&, z.e. so that I let myself be guided by the impulses of 
human nature sinfully determined, Gal. v. 16 ff.—iva ) rap’ éuoi 7d vat vai 
kai TO od ov] By iva is expressed simply the immoral purpose which would be 
connected with Bovietecba kata cdpxa ; in order that with me there may be the 
Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay, i.e. in order that with me affirmation and denial 
may exist together ; that I, according as the case stauds, may assent to the 
fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it ; to-day yea, and to-morrow nay, 
or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Billroth errs in thinking that in 
this explanation «ai must be taken as also. That it means and, is proved by 
vy. 18,19. The duplication of the vai and of strengthens the picture of the 
untrustworthy man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies. 


1 In other respects Theodoret, Bleek, and from Macedonia. But Chrys., quite against 
Neander, as also Billroth, Olshausen, and the context, explains the double joy as kai 
Riickert, agree in thinking that Sevrépay Thy ia TOY ypaumatwy Kal THY dua THS Tapovatas, 
refers to the repeated visit to Corinth So also Erasmus, Vatalbus, and others. 
which had been intended after returning 


450 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the reading of 
the Vulgate, 7d vai xa? 7d ob, Which has very weak attestation. The arti- 
cle marks the vai vai and the od of as well-known and solemn formulae of 
affirmative and negative asseveration (as they were also in Jewish usage ; 
see Wetstein, ad Matth. v. 37). Comp. on vai vai, Soph. O. C. 1748. As 
to the main point, namely, that the vai vai and the od od are taken as the 
subject of 7, this explanation has the support of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
Estius (though conjecturing iva uf instead of iva), Cornelius & Lapide, 
Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others ; also of Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Flatt, 
Schrader, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, and others ; even 
Olshausen, who, however, sets up for vai and ot the ‘‘ peculiar” signification 
(assumed without any instance of its being so used) of ‘‘ truth” and ‘‘false- 
hood.” The diplasiasmus vai vai and oi od is not without reason (as Billroth 
and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excitement of 
the moral consciousness ; whereas afterwards, in ver. 18, where his words 
go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful God, the bare vai kai oi is 
quite inits place. Note, further, that the simple expression of the coevistence 
of the yea and nay (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking, than if Paul 
had given a more precise explanation of the maxims of yea and nay. The 
readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could not but know that he was 
no yea-and-nay man. Others consider the second vai and the second oi as 
predicates, so that a wholly opposite sense is made out of the words: in 
order that with me the Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, z.e. in order that 
I may stubbornly carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp. 
Jas. v. 12. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, 
Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth ; Winer, p. 429 [E. T. 
576], gives no decision. The context, however, before (‘‘levitatis et incon- 
stantiae, non autem pertinaciae crimen hic ase depellere studet,” Estius) 
and after (vv. 18, 19), is decisive against this view. Hofmann imports into 
map’ éuot a contrast to rapa T6 OcG, so that the idea would be: to assent to 
or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s own self, without reservation, 
because purely as an expression of self-will, with which Jas. iv. 13 is com- 
pared.* Such a contrast could not but be based upon what went before, in 
itself as well as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis 
on rap’ éuot the order iva rap’ éuot 7 Would have been suitable ; and the idea 
of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have demanded not kai but 7 be- 
tween the vai and the of. And was Paul, then, the man in whose resolves 
“‘the yea is always meant with the reservation of a nay”? Luther’s trans- 
lation (comp. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the 
mark of interrogation is placed after xara oc. Bovd., and in that case there is 
supplied nequaquam, of which negation iva «.r.A. specifies the purpose. This 
is intolerably arbitrary. Regarding the erroneous translation of the Peshitto 
(Grotius agrees with it), which distorts the meaning from misconception, 
see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 2. 

1 Similarly Ewald, but he takes map’ éuoé one or the other »*), as if, therefore, it were 


(with Camerarius) as penes me (‘merely ev exot. Ewald compares Ps. xii. 5. 
after my own pleasure to say and to do the 


= 1 


CHAP. I., 18, 19. 431 


Ver. 18. But according to His faithfulness, God causes our speech to you to be 
not yea and nay, not untrustworthy.’ The dé introduces the contrast (yea rather) 
to the state of things denied in the preceding question (Baeumlein, Partii. 
p- 95) ; and érz is equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo, dr, like John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51 ; 
1 Cor. i. 26, al. : Faithfulis Godin reference to this, that our speech, etc., 7.¢. 
God shows Himself faithful by this, that, etc. Beza, Calvin, and others, in- 
cluding Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann, 
take micrd¢ 6 Oedc as an asseveration : proh Dei fidem! Against all linguistic 
usage, for thé (6 zy . . . ore (see on Rom. xiv. 11), which is compared, is 
a habitual formula of swearing, which the miordc 6 Ocdc, very frequent with 


- the apostle (1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13; 1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. ili. 3; 1 Johni. 


9), is not. Nor can we compare xi. 10, where a subjective state of things is 
asserted as a guarantee of what is uttered. — 6 Aéyo¢ juév| is by most under- 
stood of the preaching of the gospel, according to which Paul thus, against 
the suspicion of untruthfulness in his resolves and assurances, puts forward 
the truthfulness of his preaching,—in which there lies a moral argument a 
majori ad minus ; for the opinion of Hofmann, that Paul means to say that 
his preaching stands in a different position from the conditioned quality of 
his yea.and nay, falls with his view of ver. 17. From ver. 19, however, it 
appears to be beyond doubt that the usual explanation of Adyoc, of the 
preaching, not in general of the apostle’s speech (Riickert), or of that unful- 
filled promise (Erasmus in the Annot.), is the right one. Olshausen mixes up 
the two explanations. 

Vv. 19-22. Paul furnishes grounds in ver. 19 f. for the assurance he had 
given in ver. 18 ; then refers his veracity to the stedfastness bestowed on 
him by God, ver. 21 f.; and finally, ver. 23, makes protestations as to the 
reason why he had not yet come to Corinth. 

Ver. 19. ‘0 yap Tov Oeod vidc| or, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf, 
following preponderating testimony, have it rightly : 6 rot Ooi yap vide (yap 
in the fourth place ; see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 100 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
I. p. 389 ; Hermann, ad Philoct. 1437), marks the rod Oeov as emphatic, in 
order to make what is to be said of Christ, oi« éyévero vai x. ob, felt at once in 
its divine certainty. To be God’s Son and yet vai x. ob would be a contra- 
diction. Inthe wholeé.. . ’I. X. there lies a solemn, sacred emphasis. — 
6 év byiv Ov iuov Kypvyxeic] reminds the readers of the jirst preaching of Christ 
among them, of which Paul could not but remind them, if they were to 
become perfectly conscious, from their experience from the beginning, that 
Christ had not become va? x. ob. But in order to make this jirst preaching 
come home to them with the whole personal weight of the preachers, he 
adds, in just consciousness of the services rendered by himself and his 
companions as compared with the later workers, a more precise definition of 
the d? jyav, with more weighty circumstantiality : dv’ éuod x. LeAovavowv x. 
Tiuwoléov. For the two latter had been his helpers in his first labours 
in Corinth. See Acts xviii. 5. From this it is obvious why he has not 


1 Erasmus says aptly, Paraphr.; ‘‘Sed  praedicavimus, non vacillarit, sed semper 
non fallit Deus, cujus praesidio factum est, sui similis fuerit.”’ 
ut sermo noster, quo vobis illius evangelium 


432 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


named others, as Apollos, but simply these (Calvin thinks, that these had 
been most calumniated) ; hence also there is no need to suppose any inten- 
tion of making his assurance more credible (Chrysostom, Thcophylact, and 
many others). <A side glance at the Christ preached by Judaistic opponents 
(xi. 4) is here quite foreign to the connection (in opposition to Klépper, p. 
86 f.). — LAovavov| Universally so with Paul (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1) ; 
also in 1 Pet. v. 12. In the Acts of the Apostles only the shortened name 
Si2zag appears. Silvanus is here placed before Timothy, because he was an 
older apostolic helper than the latter. Sce Acts xv. 22 ff. — ovx éyévero vat 
x. ov] He has not become affirmation and negation, has not showed Himself as 
untrustworthy, as one who affirms and also denies (the fulfilment of the divine 
promises, ver. 20), as one who had exhibited such contradiction in himself. 

his Paul says of Christ Himself, in so far as in the personal objective Christ, 
by means of his appearance and His whole work,. the vai in reference to the 
divine promises, the affirmation of their fulfillment, is given as a matter of 
Jact. Wrongly most expositors (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact) understand Xpiordé¢ as doctrina de Christo (‘‘ our gospel of Christ is not 
changeable, sometimes one thing, sometimes another, but it remains ever 
the same’’), an interpretation here specially eaeinaed by verses 20 and 21. 
This may be urged also against the similar interpretation of Hofmann, that, 
with the very fact that Christ has come to the readers through preaching, 
there has gone forth a Yea (the affirmation of all divine promises), without 
any intervention of Nay. Olshausen and Riickert take it rightly of Christ 
Himself ; but the former puts in place of the simple meaning of the word 
the thought not quite in keeping : ‘‘ Christ is the absolute truth, affirmation 
pure and simple ; in Him is the real fulfilment of the divine promises ; in 
Him negation is entirely wanting ;” and the latter arbitrarily limits éyévero 
merely to the experience of the Corinthians (‘‘ among you He has not shown 
Himself untrustworthy”). Paul, however, uses the words ovx éyévero val k. 
ov of Christ in general, and by 6 év tuiv . . . Tewod. directs the attention of 
the Corinthians to the recognition of the truth on their part and out of their 
own experience. — a/24 vai év avt@ yéyovev] of the two only the former, 7.¢. 
afiirmation (that the divine promises are fulfilled and shall be fulfilled) 7s-es- 
tablished in Him: in Christ is actually given the yea, that, etc. In the per- 
fect yéyovev (different from the previous aorist éyévero) is implied the continu- 
ance of what has happened. Comp. on Col. i. 16; John i. 3. Grotius, in 
opposition to the context (see ver. 20), referred vai év aire yéy. to the mira- 
cles, by which Christ confirmed the apostolic preaching. And Beza awk- 
wardly, and, on account of ver. 20, erroneously, took év air of God, whose 
Son is ‘‘ constantissima Patris veritas.” 

Ver. 20. A more precise explanation and confirmation of vai év aitw yéy- 
ovev, running on to the end of the verse. Hence dca... auf is not to be 
put in a parenthesis, as Griesbach, Scholz, and Ewald.—rd vai and 7d duhv 
cannot be synonymous, as most of the older commentators take them (re- 
petit, ut ipsa repetitione rem magis confirmet,” Estius), for this is rendered 
impossible by the correct reading 0d x. d¢? abtoi Td aug (see the critical re- 
marks). Rather must the former be the cause (dé) of the latter. And here 


CHAP TO 21; 433 


the expression 76 auf is without doubt to be explained from the custom in 
worship, that in public prayer a general Amen was said as certifying the 
general assurance of faith as to its being heard (see on 1 Cor. xiv. 16). Ac- 
cordingly 76 vai and 7d dufy are here to be distinguished in this way ; 10 vai, 
as in the whole context, denotes the certainty objectively given (comp. on 
that point, Rom. xv. 8), and 10 ayufv, the certainty subjectively existing, the 
certainty of faith. Consequently : for, as many promises of God as there are 
(in the O. T.), in Him is the yea (in Christ is given the objective guarantee 
of their fulfilment) ; therefore through Him also the Amen takes place, there- 
fore it comes to pass through Christ, that the Amen is said to God’s prom- 
ises ; 2.€. therefore also to Christ, to His work and merit, without which we 
should want this certainty, is due the subjective certainty of the divine promises, 
the faith in their fulfilment. Billroth, indeed (and in the main, de Wette), 
thinks the conception to be this: that the preachers of the gospel say the 
Amen through their preaching, so that 7d vai refers to the living working 
of God in Christ, in whom He fulfils His promises, and 76 auqyv to the faith- 
ful and stedfast preaching of these deeds of God. But the saying of Amen 
expressed the assurance of faith, and was done by all ; hence 76 dufv would 
be in the highest degree unsuitable for denoting the praedicatio. Finally, 
Riickert is quite arbitrary when he says that 76 vai relates to the fulfilment 
of the prophecies wrought by the appearing of Christ Himself, and 7d auf 
to the erection of the church, which had grown out of that appearing.—The 
article before vai and dufv denotes the definite Yea and Amen, which relate 
to the érayyeAias Ocot and belong to them. The article was not used before 
in ver. 19, because no definite reference of the yea was yet specified. — rd 
Oe@ mpdc ddEav J’ judy] a teleological definition to 6” aitod 76 ausv with the 
emphatic prefixing of 740c@ : to God’s honour through us, i.e. what redounds 
to the glorifying of God (vili. 19) through us. — dv ijudv| nostro ministerio 
(Grotius), in so far, namely, as the ministry of the gospel-preachers brings 
about the Amen, the assurance of faith in God’s promises, Rom. x. 14. 

Ver. 21 f. Aé] not specifying the ground of 16 Oe@ mpd¢ déFav (Grotius), 
_nor confirming the assurance that he had preached without wavering (Bill- 
roth), but continuative. Paul has just, with 6’ 7uér, pointed to the blessed 
result which his working (and that of his companions) is bringing about, 
namely, that the Amen of faith is said to all God’s promises to the glory of 
God. But now he wishes to indicate also the inner divine life-principle, 
on which this working and its result are based, namely, the Christian sted- 
Jastness, which is due to no other than to God Himself. — On the construc- 
tion, comp. v. 5 ; hence Billroth (whom Olshausen follows) has incorrectly 
taken 6 dé BeBadv ... Oed¢ as subject, and 6 kai odpay. x.t.A. as predicate. 
It is to be translated : ‘‘ And He who makes us stedfast with you toward 
Christ, after He has also anointed us, is God; who also,” etc. Since the 
anointing precedes the BeGawiv, and is its foundation, and Paul has not 
written 6 dé ypicac jude Kai BeBadv x.7.A., it is not to be regarded with the 
expositors as gui autem confirmat et uncit, but Kat ypicac juac is to be taken 
as a definition subordinate to the BeBadr, and kai as the also of the corre- 
sponding relation ; otherwise, there would be a hysteron-proteron, which 


434 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


there is no ground for supposing. —el¢ Xpiorév in relation to Christ, so 
that we remain unshakenly faithful to Christ. Chrysostom well says: 6 “7 
é@v nuacg Tapacaretecbar Ex THE TioTewe THE ei¢ T. Xptordv. The explanation : 
into Christ (Billroth, Olshausen) has against it the present participle. For 
the believers are already in Christ ; their continued confirmation (f¢f., see 
on 1 Cor. i. 6) therefore could not but take place in Christo, Col. ii. 7, not in 
Christum. — civ iyiv] Paul adds, in order not to appear as if he were deny- 
ing to the readers the BeBaiwore cic Xprotév. Estius says aptly : ‘‘ut eos in 
hac sua defensione benevolos habeat.” This agrees with the whole tone of 
the context ; but there is not, as Riickert conjectures, a side glance at those 
who had held the apostle to be a wavering reed. — ypicag 7juac] here, with- 
out odv duiv, is a figurative way of denoting the consecration to office (Luke 
iv. 18; Acts iv. 27, x. 88 ; Heb. i. 9), z.e. to the office of teacher of the gos- 
pel, without, however, pressing the expression so far as Chrysostom and 
Theophylact : duo mpodfrac kai lepeic x. Baordéac épyacduevoc. Whether, how- 
ever, did Paul conceive the consecration as effected by the call (Billroth, 
Olshausen, Riickert) or by the communication of the Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, 
Estius, Osiander, and many others, following the ancient expositors) ? Ver. 
22 is not opposed to the latter view (see below) ; and since the call to the 
office is, in point of fact, something quite different from the consecration, 
ypicac is certainly tobe referred to the holy consecration of the Spirit (comp. 
Acts x. 38). Comp., further, 1 John ii. 20, 27, and Diisterdieck on 1 John 
i. p. 855. An allusion to Xpvoréyv (Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann, and others) 
would not be certain, even if there stood kai ypica¢ cat juac, because Xpiorév 
is not used appellatively, but purely as a proper name. An anointing of 
Christ (as at Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27, x. 88; Heb. 1. 9) is as little men- 
tioned by Paul as by John. If, however, it had been here in his mind, in 
order to compare with it the consecration of the jueic, he could not but have 
added oiv ait6, or some similar more precise definition of the relation in- 
tended, to make himself intelligible ; comp. the idea of the ov€woroueiv ovv 
Xpior@, and the like. — 6 kai odpayic. bua x.t.A.] is argumentative. How 
could He leave us in the lurch unconfirmed, He, who has also sealed us, etc. ! 
How would He come into contradiction with Himself! This odpayic. iuac 
does not present the same thing, as was just expressed by ypicac ju., in 
another figurative form ; but by means of «ai it adds an accessory new ele- 
ment,’ namely, the Messianic sealing conferred, although likewise through 
the Holy Spirit (see the sequel), apart from the anointing, 7.e. the inner con- 
firmation of the Messianic owrypia. Comp. on Eph. i. 13, iv. 30. It is not 
added to what the sealing objectively relates (to the Messianic salvation), 
because it is regarded as a familiar notion, well known in its reference. — «ai 
dove x.7.A.] is epexegetical of 6 odpayiodu. yuac, Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545]. — 
tov appaBdva Tov rvetuatoc] Comp. v. 5. The genitive is the genitive of ap- 
position, as 1 Cor. v. 8: the earnest-money, which consists in the Spirit. appaBdv- 
(also with the Romans arrhabo or arrha) is properly 7 ért raic avaicg rapa Tév 


1 Hence xai is tobe taken as also, not with pecially as cat odpay. and kai Sovs are not 
the following kai, as well... as also ; es- two acts essentially different. 


CHAP. I., 23, 24. 435 


avovuévav diouévy mpoxataBory trip acdadrciac, Etym. M. ; Aristot. Pol. i. 4. 
5; Lucian, Rhet. praec. 17, 18. Then it is a figurative expression for the 
notion guarantee. See in general Wetstein, and especially Kypke, Odss. 
Il. p. 239 f. Hor what the Holy Spirit is guarantee, Paul does not say, but 
he presupposes it as an obvious fact in the consciousness of the readers, just 
as he did with odpayicdu. The Holy Spirit is in the heart as an earnest- 
money given for a guarantee of a future possession, the pledge of the future 
Messianic salvation. Comp. v.5; Eph. i. 14. How? see Rom. viii. 2, 10 
i oa Ar viii. 15 ff. ; Gal. iv. 6 f.; Eph. v. 19. In d)faf., therefore, the 
climax tov pweAAdvtwrv ayabov (Theodoret) is characteristic. — év raic 
kapdvaic yu. | The direction is blended with the result, as viii. 1 : He gave the 
Spirit, so that this Spirit is now in our hearts. Comp. viii. 16, and on John 
ili. 35. 

Ver. 23. After Paul has vindicated himself (vv. 16-22) from the suspicion 
of fickleness and negligence raised against him on account of his changing 
the plan of his ‘journey, he proceeds in an elevated tone to give, with the 
assurance of an oath (xi. 31 ; Rom. i. 9; Gal. i 20), the reason why he had 
not come to Corinth. —éyo dé] Hitherto he has spoken communicative, not 
talking of himself exclusively. Now, however, to express his own self-de- 
termination, he continues: but I for my own part, etc.—For examples of 
érixadetobat Tov Gedy uaprvpa, see Wetstein. Comp. Hom. J7. xxii. 254. Ocode 
émidGueba® Tol yap apiotoe pdptvpo écoovrat, Plat. Legg. ii. p. 664 C. — énir. 
éu. wuy.| not : against my soul, in which case it would be necessary arbi- 
trarily to supply sz fallo (Grotius ; comp. Osiander and others, also Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Siinde, Il. p. 102), but, 2 reference to (for) my soul, ‘‘in quarerum 
mearum mihi conscius sum, quam perimi nolim,” Bengel. It expresses the 
moral reference of the invocation, and belongs to ézicad., in which act Paul 
has in view that he thereby stakes the salvation (Heb. x. 89; 1 Pet. i. 9 ; 
Jas. i. 21) or ruin of his soul (Rom, ii. 9). Comp. the second commandment. 
— geidduevoc bu. | exercising forbearance towards you. This was implied in the 
very fact of his not coming. Had he come, it must have been ép jaBd6, 1 
Cor. iv. 21. Comp. ii. 1. —otxér:] not again, as would have accorded with 
my former plan, ver. 16.1 But since this former plan is altered already in 1 
Cor. xvi. 5 f., the érc in oi«ére must refer to a visit preceding our first Epistle. 
etc Képiwbov| ‘‘eleganter pro ad vos in sermone potestatem ostendente,” 
Bengel. 

Ver. 24. Guarding against a possible misunderstanding of ¢eiddpevoc. 
_ Theodoret says aptly : rovro dé dc bdopyovv réfecxev ; for the expression @exd6- 
pevoc might be interpreted as a pretension to lordship over faith. — ovy br] 
is equivalent to ov« épa, 67x. See on John vi. 46, and Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. 
Poet. p. 128. — kvpiebouev x.7.A.] The apostle knows that no lordship over 
Jaith belongs to him ; how the faith in Christ is to be shaped among the 
churches as respects contents, vital activity, etc., he has not to command, as 
if he were lord over it, but only to teach, to rouse, and entreat (v. 20) there- 


1 [The phrase is excellently well rendered in the Revised N. T., ‘‘I forbare to come.’’— 
aT W. C.] ) 


\ 


436 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


to, to promote it by praise or blame, etc. The order kup. tudv tr. riot. 
depends on the form of conception : we do not lord it over you as to faith. 
Comp. on John xi. 32, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 117 A, Rep. p. 518 
©. This prefixing of the pronoun occurs very often in the N. T.; hence it 
was the more preposterous to supply a évexa before rye rior. (Erasmus, Calvin, 
Estius, Flatt, and others). — a41a ovvepyoi] but (it is implied in my ¢gedduevoc 
iuav) that we are joint helpers of your joy, that it is our business to be helpful 
to you, so that you rejoice. To this destined aim an earlier coming would 
have been opposed, because it would have caused grief (ii. 1). The ovy in 
cvvepyoi refers to the union of the helping efficacy with the working of the 
Corinthians themselves. Contrary to the context, Grotius suggests : ‘‘ cum 
Deo et Christo,” which Osiander also imports. The yapa is not to be taken 
of the joy of blessedness (Grotius and others), but of the joy of the church 
over the improvement and the success of the Christian life amongst them. Only 
this agrees with the context, for the want of this success had been the 
cause of Paul’s formerly coming éy irq to the Corinthians and of the 
necessity for his coming again év /a3dw (1 Cor. iv. 21). — rH yap wiorer éorjxate | 
Sor in respect to faith ye stand ; the point of faith, in respect to which you 
are firm and stedfast, is not now under discussion. (P*) Note the emphatic 
placing of 7% ior. first. Theophylact well says : ovK ody év tobros (Toig Kara 
niotw) elyov te wéupacba buac’ év GAdowc dé éoadebecte. On the dative of more 
precise definition, comp. Polyb. xxi. 9. 3; Rom. iv. 19, 20; Gal. v. 1 
(Elzevir). It does not mean per fidem, Rom. xi. 20, as Bengel and Hofmann 
hold (through faith you have an independent and firm Bearing), in which 
case we should have for éorf«..a very vague and indefinite conception ; but 
itis, in substance, not different from év rH miores, 1 Cor. xvi. 13, 


Notrs By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(ac*) “ The Father of mercies.” Ver. 3. 


On this expression, Stanley makes the unwarrantable remark that it com- 
bines the two ideas that God’s essence consists in mercy, and also that He is 
the father and the source of mercies. Neither of these ideas is in the words. 
For the genitive is not that of source or effect, but of quality, as Meyer affirms, 
so that the phrase gives us the conception of God as a being whose character- 
istic is mercy; but this is avery different thing from the crude and flabby 
notion that His essence consists in mercy. For, if that be so, what becomes of 
the other perfections which reason and Scripture compel us to attribute to 
Him? 


(HH*) That we may be able to comfort. Ver. 4. 


Paul was willing to be afflicted in order to be the bearer of consolation to 
others. A life of ease is commonly stagnant. It is those who suffer much and 
who experience much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost who live much. Their 
life is rich in experience and resources (Hodge), 


NOTES. 437 


& 


1°) ** The sufferings of Christin us.’’ Ver. 5. 
g 


This means, as Meyer states, not sufferings on account of Christ, nor those 
which He endures in His members, but such sufferings as Christ endured, and 
which His people are called upon to endure in virtue of their union with Him. 
It is not enough simply to say that it is of the very nature of spiritual things 
that they cannot be confined within themselves, It is a more specific truth 
the Apostle has in view, viz. that as union with Christ was the source of 
His afflictions, so it was the source of His abundant consolation. 


(3°) The reason of Paul's affliction and his comfort. Vv. 6, 7. 


The order of the words in these verses is well given in the Revision of 1881. 
The general sense is plain. If the Apostle was afflicted, it was for the salva- 
tion of others ; if he was comforted, it was for their comfort. In this twofold 
sense they were joint partakers in his joys and his sorrows. 


(K°) ** The sentence of death.’ Ver. 9. 


The Revised N. T. begins this verse with Yea instead of But (so Stanley and 
Principal Brown), which certainly seems more vivid. Meyer's objection is 
hardly tenable.—The Revised rendering answer of the first noun, now gener- 
ally adopted, is wonderfully expressive and emphatic. It means, ‘‘ Whenever I 
have put to myself the question, What will be the issue of this continuous con- 
flict? the answer has been, Death.’’ 


(x3) ‘* And doth deliver.’’ Ver. 10. 


Westcott and Hort as well as Tischendorf adopt the future reading, ‘‘and 
will deliver,’’ which is given also in the Revised N. T. ‘This reading is best 
sustained externally, but the internal evidence is all the other way. Itisa 
precious assurance that God did, does, and will deliver, as the three tenses of 
the common reading declare. 


(m°) ‘* From many countenances.’’ Ver. 11. 


A graphic picture is given in this phrase, ‘‘from many (upturned) faces,’’ as 
of men looking up to God in prayer and praise. Meyer’s view is sustained, as 
he shows, by the invariable usage of the New Testament, 


(n*) As God is faithful. Ver. 18. 


Meyer’s objection to this rendering has weight, yet his own is far from being 
unimpeachable. It paraphrases the passage rather than translates it, and is 
certainly constrained and awkward. Whereas the other gives a noble sense: 
«‘ As God is true, my preaching is true.” Paul's confidence in the truth of the 
Gospel as he proclaimed it was one and the same with his confidence in God. 
To tell him that it was not to be depended upon was all the same in his mind 
with saying that God was not to be believed. 


(0*) Anointing, sealing, earnest. Ver. 22. 


The first of these words cannot refer to official chrism, but must denote the 
unction common to all Christians (1 John, ii. 20). The second denotes the 


438 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CQRINTHIANS. 


authentication and preservation of believers, a seal being used both to prove 
genuineness and to maintain inviolate. The third is unusually strong, indi- 
cating that the indwelling of the Spirit here and now is an instalment, a first- 
fruits of what is to come, and so a very special pledge of its certain attainment. 


(p’) ** By faith ye stand.”’ Ver, 24. 


Stanley gives the sense thus : ‘‘ We are but co-operators with you in produc- 
ing not your grief, but your joy : and so far from our being the masters of your 
faith, it is by your faith that you stand independently of us.”’ 


* 


GHAPro ri. ;.1, 459 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 1. mdAw év Admy mpd¢ tude éEADciv] Elz, : waa éAOeiv év Admy mpd¢ bude, 
in opposition to ABC K L &, min, Theodoret, Damasc., also in opposition to 
DE F G, 14, 120, al., Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. and the Latin 
Fathers, who have rdAuv év Adwy EAGeiv mpd dude (so Tisch.). The Recepta! is 
evidently a transposition to connect rdéAw with éA§eiv, because it was supposed 
that Paul had been only once in Corinth. — Ver, 2. éorvy after tic is wanting in 
ABC 8, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Dam. Lachm. Tisch. Supplemental addition. — Ver. 
3. div] after éyp. is to be struck out as an explanatory addition. So Lachm. 
and Tisch., who follow A B C* &* 17, Copt. Arm. Damasc. Ambrosiast. — Ver. 
3. Abryv] DE FG, min. Vulg. It. Syr. p. Pel. Beda: Avanv éxi Atrnv. Ampli- 
fication, in accordance with ver. 1. — Ver. 7. uéAiov] is wanting in A B, Syr. 
Aug. (deleted by Riickert), In DEF G, Theodoret, it stands only after tude. 
As it was superfluous, it was sometimes passed over, sometimes transposed. — 
Ver. 9. Instead of ci, A and B have 7. But how easily might ei be dropped 
before ei¢ (so in 80), and then be variously replaced (109: dc)!— Ver. 10. 6 
Kexdpioual, ei Tr Kexdpieoual| SOA BC EG 8, min. Vulg. It, Damasc. Jer. Am- 
brosiast. Pacian. Pel. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Riick. Tisch. But Elz. has « rz 
KexYaploual, @ Keydpicuat, defended by Reiche. This reading arose from the 
Codd., which read (evidently in accordance with the previous ©) © keydpiopuat, 
ei Tt Kevapioua (so still D*** HE, 31, 37). The repetition of Kkeydpiouar caused 
the ei Tc key. to be left out ;* afterwards it was restored at a wrong place. — 
Ver. 16. Before Gavdrov and before Gwijc there stands éx in A BC &, min. Copt. 
Aeth. Clem. Or. and other Fathers. Rightly; the éx seemed contrary to the 
sense, and was therefore omitted. Accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., rejected 
by Reiche. — Ver. 17. of zoAdoit] D E FG L, min. and some versions and 
Fathers have of Ao:roi, which Mill favoured, Griesbach recommended, and 
Reiche defended. But oj rojAoi has preponderating evidence ; Ao:roi was a 
modifying gloss, and displaced the other. —xarevdriov] xarévarvti, as well as 
the omission of the following article, has preponderating attestation, and 


hence, with Lachm. and Riick., it is to be preferred. 


Vv. 1-4. Continuation of what was begun in i. 23. 

Ver. 1. "Expiva 62 éuavté rovro] dé is the usual vetaBarixdv, which leads on 
from the assurance given by Paul in i. 23, to the thought that he in his own 
interest (guavt>, dativus commodi,; for see ver. 2) was not willing to come 
again to them év Airy. (Q*) — The interpretation apud me (Vulgate, Luther, 
Beza, and many others) would require rap’ éuavro or év éu. (1 Cor. vil. 87, xi. 
13). Paul, by means of éuavré, gives to the matter an ingenious, affection- 


1 Which, perhaps, has no authorities at the copyist took place, as still 39, 73, Aeth. 
all; see Reiche, Comm. Crit. I. p. 355 f. Ambr. have merely 6 ceydpiopmat, 
2 Also with the reading o this omission of 


440 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ate turn, regarding the truth of which, however, there is no doubt. — éx«piva] 
I determined, as 1 Cor. ii. 2, vil, 27. As to the emphatically preparatory 
rovto with following infinitive accompanied by the article, comp. on Rom. 
xiv. 13, and Kriiger, § li. 7. 4. — dd] belongs to év Aimy mpdc ip. éAOeiv, 
taken together, so that Paul had once already (namely, on his second arrival) 
come to the Corinthians év Airy. The connection with éA6civ merely (Pela- 
gius, Primasius, Theodoret, and the most ; also Flatt, Baur, Reiche), a con- 
sequence of the error that Paul before our Epistles had been only once in 
Corinth,’ is improbable even with the Recepta (the more suitable order of the 
words would be : 76 uy év Adry waduy EAOeiv Tpd¢ budc), but is impossible both 
with our reading and with that of Tischendorf (see the critical remarks), un- 
less we quite arbitrarily suppose, with Grotius (comp. also Reiche), a trajectio, 
or, with Baur, I. p. 342, an inaccuracy of epistolary style. — év Airy] provided 
with affliction (Bernhardy, p. 109; comp. Rom. xv. 29), bringing affliction 
with me, i.e. afflicting you. . This explanation (Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius, 
and others, including Ewald) is, indeed, held by Hofmann to be impossible 
in itself, but is required by the following «i ydp 2 Avré buac. Hence Bill- 
roth and Hofmann, following Chrysostom and many others, are wrong in 
thinking that the apostle’s own sadness is meant ; and so also Bengel, Ols- 
hausen, Riickert, de Wette, Reiche, Neander, following Ambrosiaster, and 
others, who think that it is also included. That it is not meant at all, is 
shown. by gevdduevoc, 1. 23, and by the coupling of what follows with ydp. 
Comp. év paBdm, 1 Cor. iv. 21. The apparent difficulty, that Paul in our 
first Epistle makes no mention whatever of the fact and manner of his 
former visit to Corinth when he caused affliction, is obviated by the consid- 
eration that only after our first Epistle was the change of plan used to the 
apostle’s disadvantage, and that only now was he thereby compelled to men- 
tion the earlier arrival which had been made év Atzy. Hence this passage is 
not a proof for the assumption of a journey to Corinth between our two Epis- 
tles (see the Introd.). 

Ver. 2. As reason for his undertaking not to come to his readers again é» 
Ain, Paul states that he on his own part could not in this case hope to find 
any joy among them. Comp. ver. 3. For if I afflict you, who is there also to 
give me joy, except him who is afflicted by me ?—.e., if I on my part (éyé is em- 
phatic?) make you afflicted, then results the contradiction that the very one 
who is afflicted by me is the one who should give me joy. Against this view 

sillroth and Riickert object that ei uw). . . éuod is superfluous, and even in 
the way. No; it discloses the absurdity of the case conditioned by ¢ éyo 


1 This error has compelled many to get 
out of the difficulty by conceiving our first 
FE/pistie as the first coming ev Avy. So 
Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and 
others. Lange, Apostol. Zeitait. I. p. 204, 
believes that he has found another way: 
that Paul had the very first time come to 
Corinth in affliction (1 Cor. ii. 1 ff.), which 
affliction he had brought with him from 
Athens. Asif in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. he isspeaking 


of a Avrn! and as if a Av’ry brought with 
him from Athens, though nowhere proved, 
would have anything to do with the Corin- 
thians / 

2 This emphasis is usually not recognized. 
But in the éy# there lies a contrast to others 
who do not stand in such an intimate rela- 
tion to the readers as Paul. Comp. Osian- 
der, 


CHAP. I1., 3. 44] 


Avré buac. Pelagius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth, render: who 
yet so much gladdens me as he who lets himself be afflicted by me (which is a 
sign of amendment)? Comp. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Erasmus, and 
others. So also Olshausen, who sees here an indirect warning to take the 
former censure more to heart. But against this perversion of 6 Avrotwevog in 
a middle sense, we may decisively urge :—(1) that the sense of ver. 2 would 
not stand in any relation to ver. 1 as furnishing a reason for it ; and (2) the 
ovy iva Avrnfyre in ver. 4. Riickert sees in ci. . . duac an aposiopesis ; then 
begins anew question, which contains the reason why he may not afflict 
them, because it would be unloving, nay, ungrateful, to afflict those who 
cause him so much joy. Hence the meaning, touchingly expressed, is: ‘‘I 
might not come to you afflicting you ; forif I had done so, I should have af- 
flicted just those who give me joy: this would have been unloving on 
my part.” This is all the more arbitrary, since, logically at least, it must have 
stood in the converse order : kai tic éoriv 6 Avrobyevoc &F emo et py 6 Ebopaivor 
pe. Hofmann holds still more arbitrarily and oddly that «i ydp is elliptical 
protasis, and éyo AuvrG ipacg apodosis : 7f I come to you again in affliction, I 
make you afflicted, and who is there then who gladdens me, except him whom 


_ afjliction coming from me befalls? The well-known omission of the verb in 


the protasis after ei is, in fact, a usage of quite another nature (see Hartung, 
Partikell. I. p. 213 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 497 ; Kriiger, § Ixv. 5. 11). 
Besides, this subtlety falls with Hofmann’s view of ver. 1.—«ai] also, ex- 
presses after the conditional clause the simultaneousness of what is contained 
in the apodosis, consequently without the interrogative form : there is also no 
one, etc. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 180 f. ; Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 
311 [E, T. 362]. —6 Avrotyevoc| does not mean the incestuous person (so, 
against the entire connection, Beza, Calovius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Heumann) ; 
but the singular of the participle with the article denotes the one who gives 
joy, as such, in abstracto. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18, al. ; Xen. Cyr. il. 2. 20, al. 
Paul might have written rivec eicty oi x.7.4., but he was not under necessity of 
doing so. — 2& éuov| source of the Avreiofa:r. See Bernhardy, p. 227 ; Schoem. 
ad Is. p. 348; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. Comp. aq’ dv, ver. 3; but é¢ is 
‘* quiddam penitius,” Bengel. 

Ver. 3 appends what Paul had done in consequence of the state of things 
mentioned in ver. 1 f.: And Ihave written (not reserved till I could commu- 
nicate orally) this very thing, i.e. exactly what I have written, in order not, 
when I shall have come, to have affliction, etc. — éypapa] placed first with em- 
phasis, corresponds to the following é206v, and does not at all refer to 
the present Epistle (Chrysostom and his followers, Grotius, and others, 
including Olshausen), against which opinion vv. 4, 9 are decisive, but to our 
Jirst Epistle, the contents of which in reference to this point are rendered 
present by rovro airé ; as indeed ovroc is used often of what is well known, 
which is pointed to as if it were lying before one (Kiihner, II. p. 325). 
That Paul is thinking of the passages of censwre and rebuke in the first Epis- 
tle (especially of chap. v."), results from the context, and suffices for its ex- 





1 Not merely iy. 21, wherein the »} év Avy éAdew is held to be contained (Calovius, 
Osiander). iv. 21 was only a casual threat. 


442 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


planation, so that the reference to a lost letter sent along with Titus (Bleek, 
Neander, Ewald, Klépper ; see Introd. § 1) is not required. With Theo- 
doret, Erasmus, Morus, Flatt, Riickert, Hofmann,’ to take rovro airé as in 2 
Pet. i. 5, for this very reason, cannot in itself be objected to (Bernhardy, p. 
130 ; Kiihner, § 549, A. 2; Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 214 ; and see on Gal. ii. 
10 and on Phil. i. 6); but here, where Paul has just written in ver. 1 roir 

as the accusative of the object, and afterwards in ver. 9 expresses the sense 
for this reason by ei¢ rovro, there isno ground for it in the context. —iva py 
x.t.2.] Since his arrival was at that time still impending, and Paul conse- 
quently denotes by iva . . . éyw a purpose still continuing in the present, 
the subjunctive éyw (or o7@, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf, read, 
following A B&*, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius) after the pre- 
terite éypaypa is quite accurate (Matthiae, p. 1180); and Riickert is wrong 
when he takes éA@ov hypothetically (¢f I had come), and refers cyé to the past. 
In that case, Paul could not but have used the optative. — aq’ dv] ard tobtTur, 
ag’ ov. See Bornem. Schol. in Lue. p. 2. — ard, on the part of. Xaipew does 
not elsewhere occur with a6, but eigpaivecbac is similarly joined with avd, 
Xen. Hier. iv. 6 ; Judith xii. 20. — éde] The imperfect indicates what prop- 
erly (in the nature of the relation) ought to be, but what, in the case contem- 
plated of the Aimy éyo, is not. See Matthiae, p. 1138 f. — rerodac x.t.A. | 
subjective reason assigned for the specified purpose of the éypawa : since I 
cherish the confidence towards you all, etc. Paul therefore says that, in order 
that he might find no affliction when present among them, he has communi- 
cated the matter by letter, because he is convinced that they would find 
their own joy in his joy (which, in the present instance, could not but be 
produced by the doing away of the existing evils according to the instruc- 
tions of his letter). —ézi] of the direction of the confidence towards the 
readers. Comp. 2 Thess. iii. 4; Matt. xxvii. 48 ; Ps. exxiv..1. In classi- 
cal authors usually with the dative, as i. 9. — rdvrac iuac] This, in spite of 
the anti-Pauline part of the church, is the language of the love which zéyra 
miotevel, TavTa éAriver, 1 Cor. xili. 7. ‘‘ Quodsi Pauli opinioni judicioque 
non respondeant Corinthii indigne eum frustrantur,” Calvin. 

Ver. 4. Reason assigned for the weroldc x.7.A. For if I in writing the 
Epistle had not had that confidence, the Epistle would not have caused me so 
much grief and so many tears. In the very contrast of this confidence with 
the necessity of having to write in such a manner lay the great pain. — é« 
and dié vividly represent the origin of the letter as a going forth and a press- 
ing through : out of much affliction and anwiety of heart I wrote to you through 
many tears. And this Paul might say, even if he had not himself held the 
pen. — Orie and cvvoy4 (anxiety, Luke xxi. 25 : not so among the Greeks, 
but see Schleusner, Tes. V. p. 212) do not refer to outward, but to cnward 


1Hofmann, in accordance with his inter- row of heart. And this isthe very reason 
pretation of rovto avro, “for this very rea- why Iwrote to you: I did not wish to have 
son,”? which serves to point to the following sorrow of heart on my arrival, etc. This is 
iva wy «.7.A., thus defines the relation of vv. what Paul by the composition of his Epis- 
land 3: This is what I resolved for myself, tle had wished to obtain for his sojourn, 
that I would not again come to youinsor- when he should come. . 





; 


a 





a 


ay Se er ee 
: 


ee eS ee eee ee eee 
< F s 


CHAP Il-, 5. 443 


suffering, as both are defined by xapdiac. Riickert concludes from the calm 
tone of the first Epistle that Paul ‘‘ had from prudent consideration known 
how to impose such restraint on his state of feeling, that the Epistle might 


not reflect any faithful picture of it.” But this would have been cunning 


dissimulation, not in keeping with the apostle’s character. No; it was 
just his specially tender care for the Corinthians which on the one hand in- 
creased his pain that he needed to write such rebukes, and on the other hand 
did not allow his vehement emotion to emerge in that Epistle ; hence we 
must not say that the quiet character of our first Epistle is not psychologi- 
cally in keeping with the utterance of this passage. In particular, 1 Cor. v. 
might have caused the apostle anxiety and tears enough, without our needing 
to suppose an intermediate letter (see on ver. 3). — daxptwv] Comp. Acts xx. 
19, 81. Calvin aptly says: ‘‘mollitiem testantur, sed magis heroicam, 
quam fuerit illa ferrea Stoicorum durities.” — oby iva Avanfyre, aA2d K.7.H. | 
This added explanation regarding the purpose of his letter, to him so painful, 
is intended also to corroborate the werofo¢ x.7.4., of Which he has given as- 
surance. — tyv ayarnv| placed first for emphasis. — repicoor.| 7 (cic) Tove 
dAhove palyrdc, Theophylact, who, following Chrysostom, also directs atten- 
tion to the winning tenderness of the words (katayAvxaiver 02 tov Adyov Bovaéd- 
pevoc extomdcacta avtotc). Comp. i. 12. The love of the apostle for his 
churches has along with its universality its various degrees, just as the love 
of a father for his children. The Philippians also were specially dear to 
him. 

Vv. 5-11. Digression regarding the pardon to be granted to the in- 
cestuous person.—That the incestwous person is meant, as even Klépper 
maintains in spite of his assumption of a lost intermediate letter, is denied 
by Tertullian (de Pudicitid, 13) simply for dogmatic-ascetic reasons. The 
exclusion, which Paul demanded in the first Epistle, v. 18, left open the 
possibility of a return to the communion of the church by the path of suit- 
able penitence and expiation ; as may be gathered also from 1 Cor. v. 5, 
where the apostle’s threat of the higher excommunication, of the giving over . 
to Satan, contemplates in this punishment the conversion and saving of the 
offender, and consequently shows clearly that in the apostle’s eyes the penal 
procedure of the church, even in the case of so gravé a sin, was of a paed- 
agogic nature in reference to the person of the evil-doer. The penance of 
the latter, however, as well as that of the whole church on his account (vii. 
7. ff.), may have really been so deeply and keenly manifested, that Paul, in 
accordance with the now changed state of things, might express himself in 
such a mild, conciliatory way ashe does here. And there is no sufficient 
ground in the passage for the assumption of an intermediate letter, or that 
there is here meant, not the unchaste person, but a slanderer rebuked by 
Paul in this intermediate letter (see Introd. § 1). Besides, the mild, soft 
tone of the present passage, if it referred to such a personal opponent, would 
not be in keeping with the quite different way in which, from chap. x. 
onwards, he pours forth his apostolic zeal against his personal opponents 
and slanderers. . 

Ver. 5. ‘To cause grief among you was not my intention (ver. 4) ; he, 


444 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


however, who has (really) caused grief has not grieved me.” In other 
words : ‘I did not wish to grieve you ; one of you, however, has with his 
afflicting influence, not affected me, but,” etc. Olshausen connects ver. 5 
_ with ver. 3: ‘‘if, however, any one formerly has awakened grief.” But 
how arbitrary it is to leap over the natural reference to the immediately 
preceding Avrnbjre ! And if the ‘‘ formerly” made the contrast, it must have 
been somehow expressed.—In the hypothetical ci, as in the indefinite ruc, 
there lies a delicate, tender forbearance. — ov« éué Aedirnxev, aAd’| Paul does 
not say ov pdvov, aAAd Kai, because as concerns the relation of the matter to 
himself he wishes absolutely to deny that he is the injured party. He could 
do this, because he did not belong to the church, and he wishes to leave 
wholly out of view his position as apostle and founder of the church in the 
interest of love and pardon. Olshausen thinks that he wishes indirectly to 
refute the erroneous position of some (impenitent) Corinthians towards the 
case of the incestuous person ; that many, namely, had lamented much 
to the apostle about the solicitude which that unhappy person had caused 
to him ; and that, in order to make these turn from him to themselves, he 
says that the question is not about him, but about them, that they should 
look to their own pain. But of this alleged direction to occupy themselves 
with their own pain, there is nothing whatever in what follows ; and the 
apostle would have set forth in more precise terms a rebuke so weighty ; it 
was not at all fitting here, where the touched heart beats only with mildness 
and forgiveness. —Aedirynxev] Bengel says aptly: ‘‘contristatum habet.” 
— aan ard pépove x.t.A.] but in part, that I may not burden him (with greater 
guilt), you all. amd népovc, Which Paul adds ¢eddéuevog aitov (Chrysostom), 
softens the thought in AeAbryxev mdvtac tuac, while it expresses that the grief 
is only in a partial degree, not wholly and fully (as on the one immediately 
concerned) inflicted on all, z.e. on the whole church by means of moral sympa- 
thy ; only guodammodo .(see Fritzsche Diss. I. p. 16 ff.), therefore, are the 
readers all affected by that grief as sharers in it. The iva py éxiBapd (se. 
aitév) contains the purpose, for which he had added the softening limitation 
aro pépove. Beza, Calvin (in the Commentary), Calovius, Hammond, Hom- 
berg, Wolf, Estius, and others, following Chrysostom, agree with this 
punctuation and explanation ; also Emmerling, Fritzsche, Riickert, de 
Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald. Yet Ribiger explains it is if Paul had 
written cyeddv instead of ad pépovc. But others read iva up éniB. wavtac ty. 
together : he has not grieved me (alone and truly), but only in part (conse- 
quently you also) ; in order that I may not lay something to the charge of you 
all ; for, if he had grieved me alone, you would all have been indifferent 
towards the crime. So Thomas, Lyra, Luther, Castalio, Zeger, Bengel, 
Wetstein, and others, including Flatt. Incorrectly, because ox éué and aA’ 
ard pépovc cannot be antitheses. Mosheim and Billroth separate ravrac and 
iuac: he has not grieved me, but in part, that I may not accuse all, you ; for 
I will not be unjust, and give you all the blame of having been indifferent 
towards that crime. At variance with the words ; for, according to these, 
with this punctuation they whom Paul accuses (é7vGape7) must appear to be 
not the indifferent, but those grieved by the incest. Olshausen also follows 





/ 


CHAP, II., 6. 445 


this punctuation, but finds in ard pépove, iva pp ériB. révrac a Aelicate irony 
(comp. also Michaelis, who, however, follows our punctuation), in so far 
as Paul would have held it as the highest praise of the Corinthians, if he 
could have said : he has grieved you without exception. Since he could not 
have said this, he wittily turns his words in this way: he has not grieved 
me, but, as regards a part, you, in order that I may not burden you all with 
this care. But this very wit and irony are quite foreign to the mild tone 
and the conciliatory disposition of this part of the Epistle. Hofmann takes 
OvK éué AeAbr. as a question, after which there comes in with a4/é4 the con- 
trast (nevertheless) which continues over ver. 5 and includes ver. 6 ; in this 
case ard pépovc is temporal in meaning (yet is ‘‘jirst enough’); and iva pA 
éxtBap@ mavtac tuac, Which is to be taken together, is meant to say that the 
apostle, if he expressed himself dissatisfied with what had been done by the 
majority, would burden the whole church with the pain of knowing that 
one of their members was under the ban of sin which remained unforgiven 
on the part of the apostle ; lastly, the id rév rAcidvov stands in opposition 
to a minority, which had wished to go beyond the punishment decreed, a 
minority which is included in rédvrac. But all this involved explanation is 
inadmissible, partly because the blunt question ov« éué AcAbr., bringing 
forward so nakedly a sense of personal injury, would be sadly out of unison 
with the shrewdly conciliatory tone of the whole context ; partly because 
amd pépovc, taken of time, is as linguistically incorrect as at i. 14, and would 
also furnish the indelicate thought of an ixavéryc with reservation, and till 
something further ; partly because the complexity of thought, which is said to 
lie in ériBapé, is just imported into it ; partly because the supposition that 
the minority of the church would have gone still further in the punishment 
than the resolution of the majority went, is without any ground, nay, is in 
the highest degree improbable after the reproach of too great indulgence, 1 
Cor. v.—On émiBapeiv, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Dion. Hal. iv. 
9, vill. 73 ; Appian, B. C. iv. 31. Comp. Bdpoc of the burden of a feeling 
of guilt, Gal. vi. 2. (R*) 

Ver. 6. ‘Ixavév] something sufficient is, etc. Regarding this substantive 
use of the neuter of the predicate adjective, see Matthiae, p. 982 ; Kiihner, 
Il. p. 45. Comp. Matt. vi. 34. —16 rowtrtw] for one of sucha nature ; how 
forbearing it is here that no more definite designation is given ! — 7 émutipia 
aitn| this punishment. What it was, every reader knew. Comp. on ver. 3. 
4 éxitysia (which in classic writers denotes the franchise of a citizen, Demos- 
thenes, 230, 10, al.), in the signification poena, like the Greek rd éritincov 
(Dem. 915, 1; 939, 27, al.), 4 émitiunowe (Wisd. xii. 26), and 7d éritiunua 
(Inscript.), occurs only here in the N. T., but elsewhere also in Wisd. iii. 10, 
in ecclesiastical writers, and in acts of councils (not in Philo). It is not 
merely objurgatio (Vulgate; comp. Beza, Calvin, and others. (s*) — 7 i76 trav 
tAstévev| which by the majority (of the church) has been assigned to him. 
That the presbyteriwm is not meant (Augustine, Beza, Grotius, Valesius, and 
others), is shown by the article. There is a further question here, whether 
the excommunication enjoined by Paul, 1 Cor. v., was carried out or not 
(Beza, Calvin, Morus, Riickert, Hofmann). Most assume the former, so 


; 


446 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


that they refer ixavdy to the sufficient duration of the excommunication.’ But 
an accomplished full excommunication is not to be assumed on account of 
the very imd rév rAeéver 3 but it is probable that the majority of the church 
members, in consequence of the édpate tov rovypdv (1 Cor. v. 13 ; comp. 
ver. 2), had considered the sinner as one excommunicated, and had given 
up all fellowship with him. By this the majority had for the present suffi- 
ciently complied with the expressed will of the apostle. To the minority 
there may have belonged partly the most lax in morals, and partly also 
opponents of the apostle, the latter resisting him on principle.—Riickert, 
however, supported by Baur and Ribiger, regards Paul’s judgment ixavdv 
K.T.A., as a prudent turn given to the matter, by which, in order to avoid an 
open rupture, he represents what would have happened even without his 
will to be his own wish. But what justifies any one in attributing to him 
conduct so untruthful ? The real and great repentance of the sinner (ver. 7) 
induced the apostle to overlook the incompleteness in carrying out his 
orders for excommunication, and now from real sincere conviction to pro- 
nounce the ixavéy and desire his pardon. Comp. above on vy. 5-11. Had 
Paul not been really convinced that the repentance of the evil-doer had 
already begun (as even Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 188, is inclined to 
suppose), he would here have pursued a policy of church-discipline quite at 
variance with his character. Calvin judges very rightly of this passage : 
‘Locus diligenter observandus ; docet enim, qua aequitate et clementia 
temperanda sit disciplina ecclesiae, ne rigor modum excedat. Severitate 
opus est, ne impunitate (quae peccandi illecebra merito vocatur) mali red- 
dantur audaciores ; sed rursus, quia periculum est, ne is qui castigatur 
animum despondeat, hic adhibenda est moderatio, nempe ut ecclesia, simu- 
latque resipiscentiam illius certo cognoverit, ad dandam veniam sit parata.” 

Ver. 7. So that you, on the contrary, rather (potius) pardon and comfort. 
This is the consequence which ensued, connected with the utterance of 
ixavov x.t.A. Hence the notion of deity (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 754 ; Kiihner, 
ad. Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1) is not here to be supplied, as Billroth and Olshausen 
wish, following the older commentators. Itis not said what ought to happen, 
_ but what, according to the apostle’s conception, ensued as a necessary and 
essential consequence of the ixavév x.r.A. (Kiihner, II. p. 564). The yapicacfaz, 
however, is not at variance with the reference to the adulterer (because for- 
giveness belongs to God—Bleek, Neander), for what is here spoken of in a 
general way is only the pardon, which the church imparts in reference to the 
offence produced in it, the pardon of Christian brethren (Eph. iv. 32 ; Col. 
li. 20). — ri mepicoorépa Abry]| through the higher degree of affliction, which, 
namely, would be the consequence of the refusal of pardon, and certainly of 
the eventual complete excommunication. — kxataro6j] Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54; 
1 Pet. v. 8. This being swallowed up is explained by some, of dying (Grotius, 
according to his view of an illness of the sinner), by others, of swicide, or of 


1 Most strange is the judgment of Grotius, Corinthiorum immiserat. Paul had, in fact, 
that the apostle is here speaking not de ves- not really ordained the giving over to Sa- 
tituenda communione, but de auferendo  tanatall. See on1 Cor. v. 5. 
morbo, quem et Satanas ad preces piorum 


——- | Fs ” 
° 
. 


GHAP. II., 8, 9. 447 


apostasy from Christianity (the latter is held by Theodoret, Pelagius, and 
others, also Flatt ; Kypke and Stolz, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
and others, leave a choice between the two); or as conveying a hint that the 
dorm bordering on despair might drive him into the world, and he might 
be devoured by its prince (Olshausen). The latter point: ‘‘ by the prince 


of the world,” is quite arbitrarily imported. The sadness (conceived as a 


hostile animal) is what swallows up. The context gives nothing more pre- 
cise than the notion : to be brought by the sadness to despair, to the aban- 
doning of all hope and of all striving after the Christian salvation. Comp. 
on «atarivecv in the sense of destroying, Jacobs, Animadv. in Athen. p. 315. 

Ver. 8. Kupécar cig ait. ayar.] to resolve in reference to him love —1.e. 


through a resolution of the church to determine regarding him, that he be 


regarded and treated as an object of Christian brotherly love. On «vpovy, of 
a resolution valid in law, comp. Herodotus, vi. 86, 126; Thuc. viii. 69 ; 
Preteen (0: Diod, Sic. 11.9; Gal. iii. 15; Gen. xxiii, 20; 
4 Mace. vii. 9. See Blomfield, ad Aesch. Prom. Gloss. 70, and Pers. 232. 
Here also (comp. on ver. 6) Riickert again finds a prudent measure of the 
apostle, whereby the form, if not also the thing (the apostolic approval), is 
saved. A diplomacy, which would be the opposite of i. 13. , 
Ver. 9. Vv. 9 and 10 are not to be placed in a parenthesis, nor ver. 9 alone 
(Flatt) ; but the discourse proceeds without interruption. Ver. 9, namely, 
begins to furnish grounds for the kvpdca cic aitov aydrnv, and, first of all, 
Srom the aim of the former Epistle, which aim (in reference to the relation 
to the incestuous person in the case of most of them at least) was attained, 
so that now nothing on this point stood in the way of the kvpécac k.r.A. 
‘* Correcta enim eorum segnitie nihil jam obstabat, quominus hominem pros- 
tratum et jacentem sua mansuetudine crigerent,” Calvin. -— el¢ rovro] points 
to the following ira x.r.2., comp. ver. 1. It is: for this end in order that, 
etc. — kai éypaia is not to be translated as if it stood : kai ydp el¢ TotTo éypaya 
(Flatt), following the older commentators), but as, rightly, in the Vulgate: 
“‘ideo enim et scripsi.” The cai, however, cannot be intended to mark the 
agreement with the present admonition (Hofmann), because Paul does not 
quote what he had written ; but it opposes the written to the oral commu- 
nication (comp. vii. 12), and rests on the conception : I have not confined 


_ myself merely to oral directions (through your returning delegates), but— 


what should bind you all the more to observance—I have also written. 
This éypaya, however, does not apply to the present Epistle (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Menochius, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann, 
Schulz, Morus, Olshausen, and others), but, as the whole context shows 
(comp. vv. 3, 4), to our first Epistle.2-— rv doxiunrv bu.| your tried quality 
(vili. 2, ix. 13, xiii. 3; Rom. v. 4; Phil. ii. 22),—7.e. here, according to 
the following epexegesis, <i eic tdvta irfn. gore : your assured submissiveness 
tome. ‘The aim thus stated of the first Epistle was, among its several aims 
(comp. vy. 3, 4), the very one, which presented itself here from the point 


1 The 6 rovodros repeated at the end, in 2 On the supposition of a lost intermediate 
itself superfluous, has the tone of compas- Epistle, this must have been the one meant ; 
sion. see Ewald. Comp. on ver. 3, vii. 12. 


448 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of view of the connection. —ei¢ mdvta] in reference to everything, in every 
respect, therefore also in regard to my punitive measure against the incestu- 
ous man. Comp. phrases such as ei¢ rdvta mpérov eivat (Plato, Charm. p- 
158 A), and the like ; et¢ rdvra is here emphatic. (T°) 

Ver. 10. A second motive for the kupacac sig abtov dyar. And to whomso- 
ever (in order to hold before you yet another motive) you give pardon as to 
anything, to him Ialso give pardon. Aé, accordingly, is the simple wera- 
Bartixév. Riickert wishes to supply a uvév before ydp in ver. 9, so that ver. 9 
and ver. 10 together may give the sense: ‘‘ [¢ was, indeed, my wish to find 
perfect obedience among you ; but since you are willing to pardon him, I too am 
willing. But here, too, this supplement is altogether groundless ; nay, in 
this very case, where ver. 9 is referred by ydp to what goes before, the ex- 
press marking of the mutual relation of the two clauses would have been 
logically necessary, and hence uvév must have been used. Further, the mean- 
ing contained in Riickert’s explanation would express an indifference and 
accommodation so strangely at variance with the apostolic authority, that 
the apostle would only have been thereby lowered in the eyes of his read- 
ers. —@ 0é Te yapilecbe, kai éy6| general assurance (and this general expres- 
sion remains also in the reason assigned that follows), to which the present 
special case is subordinated. The reader knew to whom the é¢ and to what 
the zi were to be applied. — kai yap éyo «.7.4.] Reason assigned for what 
was just said. ‘‘ Mor this circumstance, that I also pardon him to whom 
you pardon anything, rests on reciprocity : what also [on my part have par- 
doned, if Ihave pardoned anything, I have pardoned with a regard to you”— 
i.e. inorder that my forgiweness may be followed by yours. This definite mean- 
ing of dv’ tuac (not the general : for your benefit, as Flatt, de Wette, Osian- 
der, and many others have it) is, according to the context, demanded by 
@ Tt yap., kai éyé, in virtue of the logical relation of the clause containing 
the reason to this assurance. Paul, however, has not again written the 
present yapifoua, but Kxeydpioua, because he wishes to hold before his 
readers his own example, consequently his own precedent already set in 
the pardon in question. Between this xceydpicuar, however, and the yapifowac 
to be supplied after «ai éyé, there is no logical contradiction. For in 
dé tt yapifec¥e the act of the sinner is considered as an offence to the church ; 
as such, the church 7s to forgive it, and then the apostle will also forgive 
it : but in kai yap éyo 6 ceydpiouae it is conceived as a vexation to the apostle ; 
as such, Paul Aas forgiven it, and that dv iudc, for the sake of the church, 
in order that it too may now give free course to the pardon which the 
offence produced in it needed.' To this thoughtful combination of the 
various references of the act, and to the placable spirit by which the rep- 
resentation is pervaded, the intervening clause ¢ tu xeyapiouac Corresponds, 
which is by no means intended to make the act of pardon problematical 
(de Wette), or to designate it only as eventual, turning on the supposition 
of the church granting forgiveness (Billroth), but contains a delicate ref- 


1 Not: to get rid of the painfulrelationin §mann infers, from his incorrect interpreta- 
which they stood to that sinner, as Hof- tion of iva wy émiBapa® wavtas Vmas, ver. 5. 





CHAP: IT, 11. 449 


erence back to ver. 5, in this sense, namely : {/—seeing that the sinner, 
according to ver. 5, has not in fact grieved me, but you—that which I 
designate as xeydpioua is really this, for the having pardoned presupposes 
the pardoner to be the injured party, which Paul, however, ver. 5, denied 
himself to be.—Against all versions, Fathers and expositors, Riickert has 
taken keydpiouae passively * of the pardoning grace which Paul experienced 
through his conversion. The sense would thus be: ‘‘for whatever I have got 
pardoned, if I have got anything pardoned, I have got it pardoned for your 
sakes (in order as apostle of the Gentiles to lead you to salvation).”” See my 
third edition. This exposition is incorrect, partly because there is nothing 
in the text to suggest an allusion to the apostle’s conversion ; partly because 
this pardoning grace was to him so firm and certain, and, in fact, the whole 
psychological basis of his working, that he could not, even in the most 
humble reminiscence of his pre-Christian conduct (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10), 
have presented it as problematical by ei re xeydpiouac ; partly because with 
this problematical inserted clause the very év rpocdérw Xpiotov (explained 
by Riickert : ‘‘on the countenance of Christ beaming with God’s grace’’) 
would be at variance. — év rpooérw Xpiotov| 7.e. in conspectu Christi, comp. 
Prov. viii. 30, Ecclus. xxxii. 4, denotes the having pardoned, in so far as it 
has taken place dv iuac, in its fullest purity and truth. It has taken place 
in presence of Christ, so that He was witness of it. (u*) Interpretations at 
variance with the words are: in Christ’s stead (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, 
Luther, Calovius, Wetstein, and others) : by Christ, as an oath (Emmer- 
ling), and others. Hofmann, who without reason maintains that according 
to our view it must have run o¢ év rpoodrw X., attaches the words to what 
follows, so that they would precede the iva by way of emphasis, like r. 
ayarnv, ver. 4 (see on Rom. xi. 31), and the meaning would be: Christ 
should not be obliged to be a spectator of how Satan deprives His church of 
one of its members. This interpretation could only be justified if we were 
in any way by the context prepared for the év rpocérw X., thus taken as a 
specially tragic feature of the devil’s guile. Besides, the thought that the 
devil injures the church wnder the eyes of Christ, would be nowhere else 
expressed. — Observe, further, how, according to this passage, the peni- 
tence of the sinner, just as much as the removal of the offence to the church, 
is the aim of church-discipline, and hence its initiation and cessation are to 
be measured accordingly ; but the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgence ? 
is at variance with this. 

Ver. 11. Aim of this pardon imparted 6” tuac : that we might not be over- 
reached, etc. <A being overreached by Satan, the enemy of Christ and of 
Christianity, would be the result if that pardon were refused to the sinner, 
and thereby his xcataroSjvai tH mepiccotépa Abr Were brought about ; for 
thereby Satan would get a member of the church into his power, and thus 


Or 


derive advantage to our loss. Onthe passive rAcovexteioSa, comp. Dem. 1035, 


1This passive use would in itself be 18; Acts xxvii. 24. 
correct as to language. See Kitihner, ad 2 Still Bisping finds its principles clearly 
Xen. Mem. i.2.10. The transitive use, how- traced out in this passage. 
ever, is the more usual one, as at Gal. iii. 


450 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


26. The subject is Paul and the Corinthian church. — ob ydp abrob x.7.A.] 
‘“By Satan, I say, for his thoughts (what he puts forward as product of his 
votc¢ 3 comp. on iii, 14, iv. 4, x. 5, xi. 3) are not unknown tous.” vofuara 
ayvoovpev forms a paronomasia, These thoughts: 1 Pet. v. 8 ; Eph, vi. 11. 
The discerning of them in the individual case is spiritual prudence, which 
we have in the possession of the vov¢ of Christ (1 Cor. 11. 16). (v*) 

Vy. 12, 18. Since Paul, by mentioning the mood in which he had written 
his former Epistle (ver. 4), was led on to discuss the case of the conscious 
sinner and the pardon to be bestowed on him (vv. 5-11), he has now only 
to carry on the historical thread which he had begun in vv. 4and 5.*. There 
he had said with what great grief he wrote our first Epistle. Now, he tells 
how, even after his departure from Ephesus, this disquieting anxiety about his 
readers did not leave him, but urged him on from Troas to Macedonia with- 
out halting. This he introduces by dé, which after the end of the section, 
vv. 5-11, joins on again to ver. 4 (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 173 ; Fritzsche, 
Diss. Ul. p. 21). Billroth attempts to connect it with what immediately 
precedes : ‘‘His designs are not unknown to us; all the more I had no 
rest.” Against this may be urged, not that a224 must have stood instead 
of dé, as Rickert thinks (see Hartung, l.c. I. p. 171 f. ; Baeumlein, Partzk. 
p- 95) ; but rather that between the emphatically prefixed od yap avrov, ver. 
11, and é29y dé, no logical relation of contrast exists. — ei¢ r7v Tpwdda] from 
Ephesus on the journey which was to take him through Macedonia to Cor- 
inth. 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9. — ei¢ rd ebayy. rou X.] Aim of the é28. eic tr. Tpwada : 
Sor the sake of the gospel of Christ—i.e. in order to proclaim this message of 
salvation (hence rod X. is genitivus objecti, see generally on Marki. 1). He 
might, indeed, have come to Troas without wishing to preach, perhaps only 
as a traveller passing through it. All the more groundless is the involved 
connection of the ei¢ 7. evayy. with the far remote dveo.w (Hofmann). — xai 
Sipac K.7.2.|] “when also (i.e. although, see Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. iv. 13 ; 
Ktihner, ad Mem. ii. 3. 19) a favourable opportunity for apostolic work was given 
to me. Comp. on 1 Cor. xvi. 9. —év xvpio] That is the sphere in which a door 
was opened to him : in Christ, in so far as the work opened up to him was 
not out of Christ (one outside of Christianity), but Christ was the element 
of it : év Kup. gives the specific quality of Christian to what is said by Vip. pu. 
av. —éoyyxa] The perfect vividly realizes the past event, as often in the 
Greek orators. Comp. i. 9, vil. 5; Rom. v. 2. See Bernhardy, p. 379. — 
7@ Tvebpati wou] Dativus commodi. Paul has not put ry wy pov, because 
here (it is different at vii. 5) he wishes to express that his very higher life- 
activity, which has its psychological ground and centre in the wvevyua as the 
organ of the moral self-consciousness (comp. on Luke i. 46 f.), was occupied 
by anxious care as to the state of the Corinthians, so that he felt himself 
thereby, for the present, incapable of pursuing other official interests, or of 
turning his thoughts away from Corinthian concerns. Comp. vii. 13 ; 1 
Cor, xvl. 18. — ro uy ebpeiv] on account of not finding, because I did not find. 


Laurent regards vv. 12 and 13 as a marginal remark made by the apostle at i. 16, and 
wrongly inserted here, 


i rs 





iP 


OHAP: I1., 14. 451 


Comp. Xenophon, Cyr. iv. 5. 9; often inGreek. See Winer, p. 308 [E. T. 
344]. — Tirov] whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he impa- 
tiently expected, in order to receive from him news of the effect of the 
former Epistle. — rdv ade2¢. ov] By nov the closer relation of fellowship in 
office is suggested for ade2¢. — airoic] the Christians in Troas. As to azoraé. 
see on Mark vi. 46. — é£7/19%0v] from Troas. — cic Maxed.]. Titus was there- 
fore instructed by Paul to travel from Corinth back to Troas through Mace- 
donia, and to meet with him again either there or here. 

Ver. 14. In Macedonia, however, he had met Titus, and, through him, 
received good news of the impression made by his former Epistle. See vii. 
6. Therefore he continues : But thanks be to God, etc., placing first not 
xapic, aS In most cases (viil. 16, ix. 15), but 7d Oecd, because, in very contrast 
to hisown weakness, the helping God, whom he has to thank, comes into his 
mind. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 57. Others here make a digression go on as far as 
vii. 5, and refer the thanks to the spread of the gospel in Troas (Emmerling !) 
or Macedonia (Flatt, Osiander). Comp. Calvin and Bengel. Against the 
context ; for, after the description of the anxiety and disquiet, the utterance 
of thanks must relate to the release from this state (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.). 
The apostle, however, in the fulness of his gratitude to God, includes (and 
thereby makes known) his special experience of the guidance of divine grace 
at that time in the general thanksgiving for the latter, as he experiences it 
always in his calling. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who abides by 
the general nature of the thanksgiving, and that in contrast to the dec- 
laration that the apostle did not preach in Troas in spite of the good oppor- 
tunity found there. —76 ravrore ApiapBebovte yuac] given rightly by the Vul- 
gate: ‘‘qui semper triwmphat nos,” is taken by many older expositors 
(Luther, Beza, Estius, Grotius, and others) and by some more recent (Em- 
merling, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander): who makes us always tri- 
umph.* Itis certainly a current Greek custom to give to neuter verbs a facti- 
tive construction and meaning. See in general, Matthaie, p. 1104, 944 ; 
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 250 ; Bithr, ad Ctes. p. 132 ; Lobeck, ad Aj. 40, 869. 
Comp. from the N. T., dvaréAAew tov jacov, Matt. v. 45; Kate 7, Matt. v. 15 ; 
padnreverv tivd, Matt. xxviii. 19 ; from the LXX., BaoiAcbey riva, 1 Sam. viii. 
22 ; Isa. vil. 6, a7. Comp. 1 Mace. vill. 13. dpa Bebe tiva is thus taken : 
to make any one a triumpher. Comp. opebe tiva to make any one dance—.e. 
to celebrate by means of dancing (Brunck, ad Soph. Ant. 1151 ; comp. Jacobs, 
ad Del. epigr. x. 55,90). The suitableness of the sense cannot be denied, but 
the actual usage is againstit ; for SprayBebe twa has never that assumed 





_factitive sense, but always means triumphare de aliquo, to conduct, to present 


any one in triumph ; so that the accusative is never the triumphing subject, 
but always the object of the triumph, as Plut. Thes. et Rom. 4: Baocdsi¢ 
édpiduBevoe kat Ayeudvac, also Plut. Mor. p. 318 B, Spray B. vicnv. Quite simi- 
lar is the Latin triwmphare aliquem. See in general, Wetstein ; Kypke, II. p. 
243. Comp. also Hofmann on the passage. Paul himself follows this usage, 


1 To this also the expositions of Chrysos- kata Tov SvaBdAov tpoTaiwy mwepipavets Toret. 
tom and Theophylact ultimately amount. So in substance Chrys. Comp. Ambrosias- 
The latter says: juas otv 0 @eds peta tov ter, Anselm, and others. 


452 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


see Col. ii. 15. We are thus the less authorized to depart from it. Hence 
it isto be translated: who always triumphs over us (apostolic teachers)—7.e. who 
does not cease to represent us as his vanquished before all the world, as a tri- 
umpher celebrates his victories. In this figurative aspect Paul considers 
himself and his like as conquered by God through their conversion to Christ. 
And after this victory of God his triwmph now consists in all that those con- 
quered by their conversion effect as servants and instruments of God for the 
Messianic kingdom in the world ; it is by the results of apostolic activity 
that God continually, as if in triumph, shows himself to the eyes of all as 
the victor, to whom His conquered are subject and serviceable. For the 
concrete instance before us, this perpetual triumph of God exhibited itself 
in the happy result which He wrought in Corinth through the apostle’s 
letter (as Paul learned in Macedonia through Titus, vii. 6). Note further, 
how naturally with Paul this very conception of his working, as a continual 
triumph of God over him, might proceed from the painful remembrance of 
his earlier persecution of the church of God, and how at the same time this 
whole conception is an expression of the same humility, in which he, 1 Cor. 
xv. 10, gives to God alone the glory of his working. Jerome, ad Hedib. 11, 
translates rightly : triwmphat nos or de nobis, but quite alters the sense of 
the word again by the interpretation : ‘‘triumphum suum agit per nos.” 
Theodoret does not do justice to the notion of the triwmph, when he merely 
explains it : 6¢ codéc ta Kal’ iuac mpvtavebwr THOe KaKEeioe TEplayer 
SyrrA0ve wuac dractyv arogaivwrv. Wetstein is more exact, but also takes 
the element of leading about, and not that of celebrating the victory, as the 
point of comparison : ‘‘ Deus nos tanquam in triumpho circumducit, ut non 
maneamus in loco, aut in alium proficiscamur pro lubito nostro, sed ut 
placet sapientissimo moderatori. Quem Damasci vicit, non Romae et semel, 
sed per totum terrarum orbem, quamdiu vivit, in triumpho ducit.” Comp. 
Krause, Opusc. p. 125 f. The conception of antiquity, according to which 
the VprauBevduevoc is necessarily the conquered, is quite abandoned by Cal- 
vin,’ Elsner, Bengel : ‘‘ gui triwmpho nos ostendit, non ut victos, sed ut vic- 
toriae suae ministros.” So also de Wette, and substantially Ewald : comp. 
Erasmus, Annot. (x*) —év Xpioté] Christ is the element in which that con- 
stant triumph of God takes place : no fact in which that consists has its 
sphere out of Christ : each is of specifically Christian quality.— The follow- 
Ing Kai Tr. douyy x.7.A2. declares what God effects through Mis triumphing. That 
airov refers not to God (so usually, as also Hofmann, following the Vulgate), 
but to Christ (Bengel, Osiander), is shown by ver. 15. The genitive rjc 
yvoo. air. is the genitive of apposition (comp. i. 22), so that the knowledge 
of Christ is symbolized as an odour which God everywhere makes manifest 
through the apostolic working, inasmuch as He by that means brings it to 
pass that the knowledge of Christ everywhere exhibits and communicates its 
nature and its efficacy. How does Paul come upon this image? Through 


1 In the translation he has triumphare nos quod esset opera sua acquisitus ; qualiter 
facit; andin the Commentary it is said: legati currum primarii ducis equis insiden- 
‘*Paulus autem intelligit, se quoque trium- tes comitabantur tanquam honoris socii.”’ 
phi, quem Deus agebat, fuisse participem, 





CHAP. I1., 15. 453 


the conception of the triwmph ; for such an event took place amid perfumes 
of incense : hence to assume no connection between the two images (Osiander) 
is arbitrary. To think of ointments (Oecumenius, Grotius), or of these as in- 
cluded (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza’), is alien to the first image ; and 
is as alien to suppose that a closed vessel, filled with perfume, is meant, and. 
that the ¢avepovvre points to the opening of the same (Hofmann). Observe,. 
moreover, that by dv judy (since the 7ueic are those conducted in the triumph, 
of SprapBevduevor) the thing itself finds its way into the image, and by this the 
latter loses in congruity. 

Ver. 15 f. Further confirmatory development of the previous kai r. dauijyv 
«.T.4., In Which, however, Paul does not keep to the continuity of the fig- 
ure, but, with his versatility of view, now represents the apostolic teachers 
themselves as odour. — Xpiorot evwdia] May mean a perfume produced by 
Christ, or one filled with Christ, breathing of Christ. The latter, (Calvin, 
Estius, Bengel, Riickert, Osiander, and most expositors; comp. also Hof- 
mann) corresponds better with the previous dou) ti¢ yvdoews abtov, and is 
more in keeping with the emphasis which the prefixed Xpvoroi has, because 
otherwise the ceiwdia would remain quite undefined as regards its essential 
quality. The sense of the figurative expression is: for our working stands 
in the specific relation to God, as a perfume breathing of Christ. The image 
itself is considered by most (comp. Ritschl in the Jahrb. fiir. d. Th. 1868, p.. 
258) as borrowed from the sacrificial fragrance (so also Billroth, Riickert, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald), on which account appeal is made 
to the well-known éop7 evwdiac of the LXX., MN Lev: i. 9, 13; 17)-08 
But as Paul, wherever else he uses the image of sacrifice, marks it distinctly, 
as Eph. v. 2, Phil. iv. 18, and in the present passage the statedly used 
dopi evwdiac does not stand at all, it is more probable that he was not think- 
ing of an odour of sacrifice (which several, like Billroth, Ewald, Ritschl, 
find already in dou, ver. 14), but of the odours of incense that accompanied the 
triumphal procession ; these are to God a fragrance, redolent to Him of 
Christ. That in this is symbolized the relation of the acceptableness to God 
of the apostolic working, is seen from the very word chosen, evwdia, which 
Hofmann misconstrues by explaining 76 eq to God’s service. — Kai év Toi¢ 
aroad.| and among those, who incur eternal death ; comp. iv. 3. See on 1 
Cor. i. 18. Grotius strangely wishes to supply here kaxwdia ex vi contrario- 
rum. It is, in fact, the relation to God that is spoken of, according to 
which the working of the Apostle is to Him ciwdia, whether the odour be 
exhaled among cwlouévor or arosAvuévot. Comp. Chrysostom. To take éy in 
the sense of operative on (Osiander) anticipates what follows. Comp. iv. 3. 
—Ver. 16 specifies now the different relation of this odour to the two 
classes. Paul, however, does not again use eiwdia, but the in itself indif- 
ferent dcu7, because the former would be unsuitable for the first half, while 
the latter suits both halves. — é« Yavdrov cic Sdvatov] an odour, which arises 
Srom death and produces death. The source, namely, of the odour is Christ, 


1 Beza, Grotius, and also L. Cappellus, contrary to the context, find an allusion to the 
anointing of the priests. 


454 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

and He, according to the idea of the Ai%o¢ tod rpooxéupatog (Rom. ix. 83; 1 
Pet. ii. 8; Acts iv. 11), is for those who refuse the faith the author of 
eternal death.! For them, therefore, in accordance with their inward atti- 
tude towards Him, Christ, the source of the odour, z.e. of the apostolic 
activity, is death, and also the effect is death, though Christ in Himself is 
and works eternal life. Comp. Matt. xxi. 44; Luke ii. 34. Hence Christ, 
by means of the xpiow which He brings with Him, is the-source respectively 
of death and life, according as His preaching is accepted by one to salva- 
vation, is rejected by another to destruction. In the latter case the blame 
of Christ’s being Yavaroc, although he is, as respects His nature and destina- 
tion, fw, lies on the side of man in his resistance and stubbornness. Comp. 
1 Cor. i. 23, also John ix. 39, ii. 18 f., xii. 48. ‘*‘ Semper ergo distinguen- 
dum est proprium evangelii officium ab accidentali (ut ita loquar), quod 
hominum pravitati imputandum est, qua fit, ut vita illis vertatur in mortem,” 
Calvin. Comp. Diisterdieck on 1 John, I. p. 166. This, at the same time, in 
opposition to Riickert, who objects that the apostolic activity and preaching 
can in no way be regarded as proceeding from @advaroc, and who therefore 
prefers the Recepta,” in which Reiche and Neander agree. Gregory of Nyssa 
remarks aptly in Oecumenius : xara tiv mpocovoav Exdorw diadeow h Cworod¢ 
tyéveto, 7 Savatynodpoc 7) evvora. Quite similar forms of expression are found 
in the Rabbins, who often speak of an aroma (00, see Buxt. Lev. Talin. p. 
1494 ; L. Cappellus on the passage), or odor vitae and mortis, see in Wetstein 
and Schoettgen. (z°)—x«al pic tavra tic ixavég ;] This no longer depends on 
the érz of ver. 15 (Hofmann), a connection to which the interrogatory form 
would be so thoroughly unsuitable that no reader could have lighted on it ; 
but after Paul has expressed the great, decisive efficacy of his calling, there 
comes into his mind the crowd of disingenuous teachers as a contrast to that 
exalted destination of the office, and with the quickly interjected xai he 
hence asks with emotion : And who is for this (7.e. for the work symbolized 
in vv. 15 and 16) fit? Who is qualified for this? The ri¢ is intentionally 
pushed towards the end of the question, in order to arrest reflection at the 
important zpd¢ ravra, and then to bring in the question itself by surprise. 
Comp. Herod. v. 33: coi dé kat tobrovot Toict mpaypuact Ti gore 3 Plat. Conv. p. 
204 D: 6 épdv tov Kado Ti epg; Ken. Cyr. iv. 6, 8; Rom. viii. 24; Eph. iv. 
Peete x1 117, ((a*) 

- Ver. 17. The answer to the foregoing question is not to be supplied, so 
that it should be conceived as negative (ei dé uy ikavot, yapitoc Td ywwduevor, 
Chrysostom, Neander, Hofmann, and others), but it is gwen, though indi- 


1 @dvaros and ¢wy are to be understood 
both times of eternal life and death. The 
contrast of cwouevor and amodAAvpévor per- 
mits no other interpretation: comp. vii. 
10. Ewald takes é« davarov of tenporal 
death and é« Gwys of temporal life: from the 
former we fall into eternal death, and from 
the temporal life we come into the eternal. 

* According to the Recepta, which Hof- 
mann also follows, dcnH gwis is life-giving 


odour, and dcpy Savdrov is deadly odour ; eis 
Savar. and eis ¢. would then be solemn ad- 
ditions of the final rveswi¢, which actually 
ensues from the life-giving deadly power of 
the odour. According to Hofmann, the 
genitives are intended to mean: in which 
they get to smell of death and of life respec- 
tively. But comp. expressions like apros r. 
Swis, das T. Swis, Adyos GwHs pyumata Swys, 





| CHAP. II., 17. 455 
rectly, in ver. 17 itself, inasmuch as the expression introduced by yép readily 
suggests to the reader the conclusion, that the subjects of éoyvev, de. Paul 
and his like, are the ixavo/, and that the zoAdoi are not so. See Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 240 ; Bauemlein, Partik. p. 83. If Paul had wished to convey in 
his question the negative statement, ‘‘ No one is capable of this,” he could 
not but have added a limiting ag’ éavroi or the like (comp. iii. 5), in order to 
place the reader in the right point of view. — oi roA20i] the known many, the 
anti-Pauline teachers.’ Comp. xi. 13 ; Phil. iii. 18. See on of rordoi ‘ de 
certis quibusdam et definitis multis,” Ellendt, Lev. Soph. Il. p. 603 ; comp. 
also Rom. xii. 5. To understand by it the majority of the Christian teachers 
in general, is to throw a shadow on the apostolic church, which its history 
as Known to us at least does not justify. —xaryAebovrec] belongs to éopév. - 
The verb means (1) to carry on the business of a xdrydoc, a retailer, partic- 
ularly a vintner ; (2) to negotiate ; (3) to practise usury with anything (ri), 
in particular, by adulteration, since the xdz720 adulterated the wine (LXX. 
Isa. i. 25), and in general, had an evil reputation for cheating (kdry2a teyvh- 
pata, Aesch. Fragm. 328 D). In this sense the word is also used by the 
Greeks of zntellectual objects, as Plato, Protag. p. 313 D: oi ta waOguara . 

kanndetevres. Comp. Lucian, Hermot. 59 : giAdcogot arodidovtai Ta waljuara 





@orep ol KamHAoL, Kepacaduevol ye ot ToAAot Kat doAdcavtes Kai KaKko“eTpovvTec. 
Philostr. 16: rjv codiav xarnrebew. So also here: comp. the opposite 2¢ 
eldcxp. and iv. 2. Hence: we practise no deceitful usury with the word of God, as 
those do, who, with selfish intention, dress up what they preach as the word of 
God palatably and as people wish to hear it, and for that end rd airév dvamyviover 
toi¢ Oetorc, Chrysostom. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 3. Such are named in Ignat. Trall. 
(interpol.) 6, comp. 10, yproréuropor, and are described as rov idv rpoordéxovtes 
The TAGINC TH yAvKeia tpoonyopia. — aA’ de éF etduxp.| but we speak (Aadodper) 
as one speaks from sincerity of mind (which has no dealings with adulter- 
ation), so that what we speak proceeds from an honest heart and thought. 
Comp. i. 12. 6é¢isas in Johni. 14. On éx, compare John iii. 31, viii. 44 ; 
1 John iv. 5. — GW oc éx Ocov] but as one speaks from God (who is in the 
speaker), as Oedrvevoroc. Comp. Matt. x. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 25; 2 Cor. v. 20. 
The add is repeated in the lively climax of the thought. Comp. vii. 11; 
and see on 1 Cor. vi. 11. Riickert strangely wishes to connect it with rodv 
Aéyov, and to supply évra. So also Estius (‘‘tanquam profectum et accep- 
tum a Deo”), Emmerling, and others. That is, in fact, impossible after a2’ 
Oc é& eidicp. —karévarre Oeov év Xpio7@| Since neither aad nor o¢ is repeated 
before xarévavt:, Paul himself indicates the connection and division : ‘‘ but 
as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak before God in Christ,” so that 
the commas after the twice occurring @eod are, with Lachmann and Tischen- 
dorf, to be deleted. This in opposition to the opinion cherished also by 
Hofmann, that xarévaryt: Oeov and év Xpior@ are two modal definitions of 
Aahoduev, running parallel with the foregoing points. — karévavte Oeov| before 


1Not merely the anti-Pauline Gentile were found whom Paul had to regard as 
teachers, as Hofmann with the reading ot falsifiers of the word, and who. every- 
Aowrot arbitrarily limits it. It wasamong where pushed themselves into the sphere of 
the Jewish-Christians that the most of those his labours. 


456 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS: 


God, with the consciousness of having Him present as witness. Comp. 
Rom. iv. 17. —év XpiorH] can neither mean Christi nomine (Grotius, comp. 
Luther, Estius, Calovius, Zachariae, Heumann, Schulz, Rosenmiller), nor 
de Christo (Beza, Cornelius & Lapide, Morus, Flatt), nor secundum Christum 
(Calvin), but it is the habitually employed expression iz Christo. We speak 
in Christo, in so far as Christ is the sphere in which our speaking moves. 
Comp. xii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 1. In Him we live and move with our speaking, 
ovdév TH juetépa copia Aaa TH wap’ éxetvov dvvauer évyyotpevor, Chrysostom, 


Norres By AMERICAN Epiror. 


(Q°) Paul's motive. Ver. 1. 


This view of the dative, which is surely correct, is adopted by the Revision 
of 1881, which renders the clause thus ; ‘‘1 determined this for myself.’’ 


(n°) Paul’s forbearance. Ver. d. 


The sense of the verse seems to be: ‘‘ The wrong in tne case has been done 
not to me personally, but to some extent (for I would not press you too hard) 
to you all.” The real injury was inflicted not upon the Apostle, but upon 
the whole church as those who tolerated the crime. Stanley says, with justice, 
that it is evident that the horror excited by the First Epistle against the offend- 
er had been very great. 


(s*) Punishment. Ver. 6. 


The meaning of the original word is certainly punishment (Wisdom iii. 10), 
and its employment by the Apostle sheds light upon the nature and aims of 
church discipline. What this punishment actually was, does not appear. But 
it was followed by genuine and overwhelming sorrow on the part of the offend- 
er, and in view of this fact Paul says that it was sufficient. The whole pas- 
sage indicates that Paul was more lenient than the church, for he exhorts 
them not to be too severe in the treatment of their offending brother. 


(rt?) ‘* Obedient in all things.” Ver. 9. 
Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits and evidences of Chris- 


tian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed, disobedient spirit 1s a strong indica- 
tion of an unsanctified nature (Hodge), 


(u*) ‘In the person of Christ.’’ Ver. 10. 


As if Christ Himself were present and looking on. Nothing could be better 
adapted to secure both fidelity and tenderness in administering the discipline 
of Christ’s house, than the feeling that the eyes of Christ were fixed upon the 
judges. 


(v?) Satan’s devices. Ver. 11. 


These are, in a matter of this kind, first to corrupt the church by inducing it 
to tolerate open sin, and then, when discipline is interposed, to render it so 


NOTES. 457 


harsh and severe and protracted that the offender is either hardened in sin or 
driven to despair. 


(x*) Who leadeth us in triumph. Ver. 14. 


Meyer’s view of this clause, though stoutly resisted by Principal Brown (Pop. 
Com.), is adopted by Stanley, Alford, Conybeare, Waite, Beet, and Plumptre; 
and is givenin the Revised Version. The neuter sense of the verb, ‘‘to triumph 
over” us, easily passes into the transitive, to lead usin triumph. The causa- 
tive sense has, as Meyer says, all New Testament and Hellenistic usage against 
it. The Speaker’s Commentary adopts Calvin’s view, and gives the sense thus: 
‘*Thanks be unto God, who at all times makes a triumphal pageant of us, as 
His victorious officers or soldiers.”’ 


(x3) ** In them that are saved.’’ - Ver. 15. 


See on I. i. 18. Hodge justly says there is no reference to foreordination, as 
if the words meant those destined either to be saved or lost. ‘: But the two 
classes are designated ex eventu. The gospel and those who preach it are well 
pleasing to God, whether men receive it and are saved, or reject it and are 
lost. The light is inestimably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it or through 
disease is destroyed by it.”’ 


(z?) ‘** From death unto death.’’ Ver. 16. 


Hither a Hebrew superlative, or a combination expressing the quality of the 
source, a deadly savour, and the nature of the effect, a savour producing 
death. So of the corresponding phrase, ‘‘a savour from life unto life.” 


(A*) Who is sufficient for these things? Ver. 16. 


The explanation of Meyer is that of nearly all critics. The Apostle meant 
that he was sufficient (not of course of himself, for this is plainly denied in the 
5th verse of the next chapter: ‘‘ our sufficiency is from God’’), and the ground 
of the sufficiency is stated in the next verse. There is, as Calvin says, an im- 
plied antithesis. The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of 
Christ : the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to others. Who, 
then, is competent to this work? Not your false teachers, who corrupt the word 
of God, but I and others who preach the gospel from pure motives.—The words 
of all faithful ministers are spoken in the presence of God and in union with 
Christ as their encompassing element. 


458 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP E Westite 


Ver. 1. 7) “7] So also Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following BC D 
E F G8, min. Vulg. It. Syr. Arr. Copt. Slav. Theodoret, and Latin Fathers. 
But «i uy (Elz. Reiche) has also considerable attestation (A K L, min. Chrys. 
Damasc. al.), and since after the interrogation the 7 continuing it occurred to 
the copyists more readily than the conditional ¢i, the latter, whose explanation 
is also more difficult, is to be preferred..—The second ovoraticov (after iudv) 
is wanting in AB C &, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Theodoret, and several 
Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Riick. An addition by way of gloss, which 
in F G is further increased by émucroAdv. -— Ver. 3. xapoiac¢] So Iren. Orig. Vulg. 
But ABCDEGI Sand many min. have capdiarce. So Lachm. An error of 
the copyist after ver. 2.— Ver. 5. a@’ éavrdv] has its correct position after 
Aoyio. 71, aS is abundantly attested by A D E FG, It. Vulg. Goth. and Latin 
Fathers (so also Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck.). The Recepta after ixavoi écuev, and 
the position before ixavot in BC 8, min. Copt. Arm. Bas. Antioch. are to be 
regarded as superfluous transpositions to connect the a@’ éavTav with ixavoi 
éouev. — Ver. 7. &v ypdupacw] Lachm.: év ypdéupati, following BD* FG. A 
mechanical repetition of the singular from ver, 6. — Before Ai@oic, Elz. Scholz 
have év. An explanatory addition against decisive evidence, — Ver. 9. 7 dvaxo- 
via} AC D* FG 8&8, min. Syr. utr. Clar, Germ. Or. Cyr. Ruf. : 77 d:axovia. So 
Lachm. and Riick. An interpretation instead of which Sedul. and Ambrosiast. 
have ex or in niinisterio, while others applied the interpreting at ddéa, as still 
Vulg. Sixtin. Pel. read év ddéy. — év 6déy] Ev is wanting in A BC N* (d6fa), 17, 
39, 80, Tol. Vulg. ms. Deleted by Lachm., bracketed by Riick. The ev slipped 
in easily from ver. 8; comp. ver. 11. — Ver. 10. ov] Elz. : otdé, against decisive 
evidence. Originated by the first syllable of the dedog. that follows. — Ver. 13. 
Instead of éavrov, adrod is, according to decisive testimony, to be read with 
Lachm. and Tisch. — Ver. 14. jépac] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive 
attestation, and was passed over as superfluous (comp. ver. 15). — Ver. 15. 
avayiwookerat] Lachm. and Riick. : dv dvayivdoxyrat, in accordance with A BC &, 
while D E have the subjunctive, but not dv. Since the dy before avay. might 
be introduced through a mistake of the copyist just as easily as it might be 
left out, we have merely to decide according to the preponderance of the evi- 
dence, which proves to be all the more in favour of Lachmann’s reading, 
because this is supported also by D E with their retention of the subjunctive 
(without av), while they betray the copyist’s omission of the av. — Ver. 17. éxei] 
is wanting in ABCD 8&* 17, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Nyss. Suspected by Griesb., 
deleted by Lachm, Tisch. and Riick. An addition of the copyists, who had in 
mind the current use elsewhere of éxei after od (Matt. xviii. 20, 24, 28 ; Jas. iii. 
16 al.), an usage not found in Paul. See Rom. iv. 15, v. 20. \ 


1 [The T. R. here is rejected by Westcott and most justly, according to the weight of 
and Hort and nearly all the later critics, evidence.—T. W. C.] 





OM APY TELS 459 


Contents. ’—This, again, is no recommendation of self ; for we need no let- 
_ters of recommendation, since you yourselves are our letter of recommendation 
in the higher sense (vv. 1-3). But with this confidence we wish to ascribe 
our ability not to ourselves, but to God, far exalted over the old covenant, who 
has made us able as servants of the new covenant, (vv. 4-6). How glorious 
is this service compared with the service of Moses (vv. 7-11) ! Hence we 
discharge it boldly, not like Moses with his veil over his face (vv. 12,18). 
By this veil the Jews were hardened ; for up to the present time they do 
not discern that the old covenant has ceased (vv. 14,15). But when they 
are converted to Christ, they will come to unhindered discernment ; we 
Christians, in fact, all behold without hindrance the glory of Christ, and 
become ourselves partakers of it (vv. 16-18). 

Ver. 1. Apyéuc)a} namely, through what was said in il. 17, regarding 
which Paul foresaw that his opponents would describe it as the beginning 
of another recommendation of himself. It is interrogative, not to be taken, 
with Hofmann, who then reads 7 7, as an affirmation, in which case a log- 
ical relation to the question that follows could only be brought out by 
importing somcthing.* —7duv| belongs to éavr. cvvicr., and refers to expe- 
riences, through which Paul must have passed already before, certainly also 
in respect to his last Epistle (1 Cor. i.-iv., v., ix., xiv. 17, al.), when the 
charge was made: éavrov cuvordver ! As to the reason why he regards the 
éavtov ovwortdvev to be such a reproach, see x. 18. — In the plural he in this 
chapter includes also Timothy, as is clear from expressions such as immedi- 
ately occur in ver. 2, év taic¢ Kapdiac ju., and ver. 6, yud¢ daxdvovg. — ovvic- 
ravew| as at Rom. xvi. 1. Hence émorodal ovorartixai or ypdupata ovorartiKd 
Arrian. Hpict. li. 8.1; Diog. L. v. 18, viii. 87), letters of recommendation. 
Regarding their use in the ancient Christian church, see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 
1194 ; Dought. Anal. I. p. 120. — ei ua u.7.A]. nisi, i.e. unless it possibly be, that, 
etc. Only if this exigency takes place with us, can that dp yovra: radu éavrode 
ovviotaverv be asserted of us. Such epistolary recommendations, indeed, we 
should not have, and hence we should have to resort to se/f-praise ! The 
expression is dronical in character, and contains an answer to that question, 
which reveals its absurdity. Comp. Xen. Mem.i. 2. 8. Hence «i is not to 
be taken, with Reiche, as siquidem or quia, and yA as negativing the yp7- 
Couev (as if it were ei ov yp7g.). -— &¢ Tevec] as some people (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 18, 
xv. 12; Gal. i. 7), certainly a side-glance at anti-Pauline teachers, who had 
brought to the Corinthians letters of recommendation, either from teachers 
of repute, or from churches,* and had obtained similar letters from Corinth 


~ 


1 See on chap. iii., Krummel in the Stud. 
und Krit. 1859, p. 39 ff. 

2The question that follows with 7 p7 
would mean: “or do we not withal need ?” 
etc., which does not fit in with apxopueda 
when taken as an affirmation. Hofmann, 
however, imports the thoughts: ewhoever is 
offended at this, that Paul has no scruple in 
recommending himself, to him he offers to 
answer on his part the question, whether he 
and his official associates have any need of 


‘ 


letters of recommendation. 

3 According to Gal. ii. 7-9 but hardly from 
the original apestles or from the church of 
Jerusalem under their guidance as such. 
This, however, does not exclude the possi- 
bility that individual members of the mother- 
church may have given such letters. We 
do not know anything more precise on the 
point: even from tivés a wd "laxwBov, Gal. 
ij. 12 ff., nothing is to be inferred. 


460 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


at their departure thence. —zpoc tac, @ é budv] In the former case, it might 
be thought that we wished to supply this need by recommendation of our- 
selves ; in the latter case (7 é§ tudv), that we, by our self-recommendation, 
wished to corrupt your judgment, and to induce you to recommend us to 
others. Both would be absurd, but this is just in keeping with the irony. 
Ver. 2 f. This ironical excitement, ver. 1, is succeeded by earnestness and 
pathos. Paul, as conscious of his deserts in regard to the Corinthians as 
he is faithful to his Christian humility (see ver. 3), gives a skilful explana- 
tion of the thought contained in ver. 1 : we need no letters of introduction 
either to you or from you. —7% ércotoAy yudv| i.e. the letter (the letter of 
recommendation) which we have, have to show, namely, as well to you as from 
you. That we should understand both, is required by ver. 1, and to this vv. 
2and 3 are admirably suited, since what is said in them represents every 
letter of recommendation as well to the Corinthians as from them as super- 
fluous. This in opposition to Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, and others, who 
are of opinion that Paul has reference merely to his previous é§ tuév, and 
(Riickert) that the zpdc¢ tuac has been said only to hit his opponents. — tyeic 
gore, In so far, namely, as your conversion, and your whole Christian being 
and life, is our work, redounding to our commendation. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 
2. — éyyeypaup. év Taig xapd. yu.| A. more precise definition of the manner of 
the éxvatoAy yudv : inscribed in our hearts. Thisis the mode—adapted to the 
image—of conveying the thought : since we have in our own consciousness the cer- 
tainty of being recommended to you by yourselves and to others by you. (B*) 
That you yourselves are our recommendation (to yourselves and to others) 
our own hearts tell us, and it is known by all. Paul did not write iuér, as 
x and a few cursives, also the Ethiopic, have the reading, which Olearius, 
Emmerling, Flatt, and especially Rinck (Lucubr. crit. p. 160), recommend 
to our adoption : for in that case there would result an incongruity in the 
figurative conception, since the Corinthians themselves are the letter. Be- 
sides, there were so many malevolents in the church. But the apostle’s own 
good consciousness Was, as it were, the tablet on which this living Epistle of 
the Corinthians stood, and that had to be left unassailed even by the most 
malevolent. Of the love (comp. vii. 3; Phil. i. 7) of which Chrysostom and 
others explain év 7. xapd. yu. (comp. Wetstein : ‘‘quam tenero vos amore 
prosequar, omnes norunt”), there is no mention in the whole context. 
Emmerling is wrong, however, also in saying that éyyeyp. év r. Kapd. jy. 18 
equivalent to the mere nobvis inscriptae, 1. e. quas ubique nobiscum gestamus, 
ut cognosci et legi ab omnibus possint. Just because what is written stands 
within in the consciousness, év raic xapd. ru.’ is used. —The plural is neither 
to be explained, with Billroth, from the analogy of oxAdyyva (without such 
usage existing), nor to be considered with Riickert and de Wette as occa- 


1 Olshausen thinks strangely that Paul 
refers to the official badge which the high 
priest wore on his heart, and on whose 
twelve precious stones stood engraven the 
twelve names of the children of Israel. This 
arrangement, he holds, Paul takes in a 
spiritual sense, and applies it to the relation 


of himself and other teachers to their spirit- 
ual children ; they bore the names of these 
engraven on their hearts, and brought them 
always in prayer before God.—Sheer fan- 
cifulness, since the, context has nothing 
pointing to a reference so entirely peculiar. 


en ai i 


CLA Pel: On 461 


sioned by the plural of the speaking person (to whom, however, the plural 
hearts would not be suitable), but Paul writes in name of himself and of 
Timothy. Comp. also iv. 6, vii. 3, and see Calvin, who, however, in an ar- 
bitrary way (see i. 1) includes Silvanus also (i. 19). —yevworouévy x.7.2. | 
This appears to contradict the previous words, according to which the 
Epistle is written év raic xapdiarc judv ; hence Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 19 f. 
(Billroth follows him), says that Paul ‘‘nonnulla adjicere, in quibus Corin- 
thiorum potius, quam epistolae, cum qua eos comparat, memor esse videatur.” 
But he rather presents the thing as 7¢ is, and hence cannot otherwise delin- 
eate the image of the Epistle in which he presents it, than as it corresponds 
to the thing. Inso far, namely, as Paul and Timothy have in their hearts 
the certainty of being recommended by the Corinthians themselves, these 
are a letter of recommendation which stands inscribed in the hearts of those 
teachers ; and yet, since from the whole phenomenon of the Christian life of 
the church it cannot remain unknown to any one that the Corinthians re- 
dound to the commendation of Paul and Timothy, and how they do so, this 
letter is known as what it is, and read’ by all men. The Epistle has therefore 
in fact the two qualities, which in a letter proper would be contradictory, 
and the image is not confounded with the thing, but is adapted to the thing. 
Riickert, who likewise (see above) finds for év r. xapd. the reference to the 
apostle’s love, explains it : ‘‘ In his heart they stand written . . . and where 
he himself arrives, there he, as it were, reads out this writing, when he from a lov- 
ing heart gives forth tidings everywhere, what a prosperous church the Lord 
has gathered to Himself in Corinth.” Comp. Chrysostom. But in that case the 
mavtec Would not in fact be the readers—as yet they ought to be according to 
tmd ravtev avOp.—but Paul ; and the thing would resolve itself into a self- 
recommendation, which is yet held to be disclaimed in ver. 1. 

Ver. 8. Gavepotuevoc] attaches itself in construction to tueic éore, to which 
it furnishes a more precise definition, and that in elucidative reference to 
what has just been said yivwoKopévy . . . avOpdrov : since you are being mani- 
Jested to be an epistle of Christ, i.e. since it does not remain hid, but becomes 
(continually) clear to every one that you, etc. Comp. on the construction, 
1 John ii. 19. — érioro2H Xpiorod| genitivus auctoris (not of the contents—in 
opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact) : a letter composed 
(dictated) by Christ. Fritzsche, l.c. p. 23, takes the genitive as possessive, so 
that the sense without figure would be: homines Christiani estis. But in 
what follows the whole origin of the Epistle is very accurately set forth, and 
should the author not be mentioned—not in that case be placed in front ? 
Theodoret already gives the right view. —éroroA4 is here not again specially 
letter of recommendation (ver. 2), but letter in general; for through the 
characteristic : ‘‘you are an epistle of Christ, drawn up by us,” etc., the 
statement above : ‘‘ youare our letter of recommendation,” is to be elucidated 
and made good. — In the following diaxovyfeica . . . capKivag Paul presents 
himself and Timothy as the writers of the epistle of Christ (d:axov. i¢’ ru.), 
the Holy Spirit as the means of writing in lieu of ink, and human hearts, 7.e. 





1 Grotius: “ prius agnoscitur manus, deinde legitur epistola.’”? Here ywwwox. precedes ; 
it is different in i. 13. 


462 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


according to the context, the hearts of the Corinthians, asthe material which 
is written upon. For Christ was the author of their Christian condition ; 
Paul and Timothy were Ms instruments for their conversion, and by their min- 
istry the Holy Spirit became operative in the hearts of the readers. In so far the 
Corinthians, in their Christian ¢haracter, are as it were a letter which Christ 
has caused to be written, through Paul and Timothy, by means of the Holy 
Spirit in their hearts. On the passive expression dcaxovyl. 19’ yu., Comp. Vill. 
19 f. ; Mark x. 45 ; note also the change of the tenses: dcaxovn). and éyyeypapype. 
(the epistle zs there ready) ; likewise the designation of the Holy Spirit as 
rvevua Oeov CSvtoc, comp. ver. 6. Wemay add that Paul has not mixed 
up heterogeneous traits of the figure of a letter begun in ver. 2 (Riickert and 
others), but here, too, he carries out this figure, as it corresponds to the thing 
to be figured thereby. The single incongruity is ob« év wAazt Aivacc, In which 
he has not retained the conception of a letter (which is written on tablets of 
paper), but has thought generally of a writing to be read. Since, however, 
he has conceived of such writing as divinely composed (see above, rvetuare 
@cov Cavtec), Of which nature was the law of Sinai, the usual supposition is 
right, that he has been induced to express himself thus by the remembrance 
of the tables of the law (Heb. ix. 4 ; comp. Jer. xxxi. 31-33) ; for we have 
no reason to deny that the subsequent mention of them (ver. 7) was even 
now floating before hismind. Fritzsche, indeed, thinks that ‘‘ accommodate 
ad nonnulla V. T. loca (Prov. iii. 8, vil. 8) cordis notionem per tabulas cordis 
expressurus erat, quibus tabulis carneis nihil tam commode quam tabulas 
lapideas opponere potucrit.” But he might quite as suitably have chosen an 
antithesis corresponding to the figure of a letter (2 John 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 13) ; 
hence it is rather to be supposed that he came to use the expression tabulae 
cordis, just because he had before his mind the idea of the tables of the law. 
— The antitheses in our passage are intended to bring out that here an epistle 
is composed in quite another and higher sense than an ordinary letter (which 
one brings into existence yéAaw omeipwv did Kadduov, Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 
C)—a writing, which is not to be compared even with the Mosaic tables of 
the law. But the purpose of a contrast with the legalism of his opponents 
(Kl6pper) is not conveyed in the context. — That there is a special purpose 
in the use of capkivare as opposed to AcOivacc, cannot be doubted after the pre- | 
vious antitheses. It must imply the notion of something better (comp. Ezek. 
xi. 19, xxxvi. 26), namely, the thought of the living receptivity and suscep- 
tibility : dexrixdg tod Adyou (Theophylact, Calvin, Stolz, Flatt, de Wette, 
Osiander, Ewald, and others). The distinctive sense of capxivde is correctly 
noted by Erasmus : ‘‘ut materiam intelligas, non gualitatem.” Comp. on 1 
Cor. iii. 1. Kapdiac is also the genitive of material, and the contrast would 
have been sufficiently denoted by daw év rAakt Kxapdiag: It is, however, 
expressed more concretely and vividly by the added capkivac : in fleshy 
tablets of the heart. ‘ 

Ver. 4. TleroiOyow is emphatic, and therefore precedes (otherwise in i. 15); 
confidence, however, of such a kind as is indicated in vv. 2, 3;' for there 


1 [Not self-confidence, as is clearly shown by the next two verses.—T. W. C.] 


OMAP PILI; DO. 463 


Paul has expressed a lofty self-consciousness. Hence there is no reason for 
seeking a reference to something earlier instead of to what immediately pre- 
cedes, and for connecting it with ii. 17 (Grotius and others, including de 
Wette ; comp. Riickert), or with ii. 14-17, as Hofmann has done in consc- 
quence of his taking apyéueGa in ver. 1 as not interrogative. Brief and apt 
is Luther’s gloss : ‘‘Confidence, that we have prepared you to form the epistle.” 
— dia tov Xpicrov| through Christ, who brings it about in us: for in his 
official capacity Paul knows himself to be under the constant influence of 
Christ, without which he would not have that confidence. Theodoret says 
well : tov Xpiorod tovT0 Huiv deddKotog Td Odpooc. — pic Tdv Oedv] in relation to 
God, as bringing about the successful results of the apostolic activity. It 
denotes the religious direction, in which he has such confidence (comp. Rom. 
iv. 2, v. 1), not the validity before God (de Wette). 

Ver. 5. Now comes the caveat, for which ver. 4 has prepared the way, 
—the guarding against the possible objection, that Paul considered himsclf 
(and Timothy) as originator of the ability for apostolic working. ovy ru is 
therefore not to be taken as equivalent to 67: oby (Mosheim, Schulz, Em- 
merling), nor is réroi0a to be supplied again after oy (Emmerling); but we 
have here the quite common use of ovy 67: for oi épd, its. See oni. 24. 
Riickert finds in ovy 67 «.7.A. a reason assigned for the zpdc roy Yedv, or an 
explanation ofit: ‘‘In thus speaking, I would not have it thought that,” 
etc. Butifin zpd¢ 7. dedv there was meant to be conveyed the same idca 
as was further explained in ver. 5, Paul would have expressed himself quite 
illogically, and in explaining or assigning a reason for it he must have writ- 
ten érz ovy. No; the course of thought is: ‘‘ With this weroidnaic, how- 
ever, I do not wish to be misunderstood or misconstrued : I do not mean 
by it, that we are of ourselves sufficient,” etc. With this connection xpo¢ 
tov Sedv is not at variance ; for by it God was not yet meant as author of the 
adequate ability (ver. 5 shows this very point), but as producer of the result. 
—Ahoyicacdai 71| to judge anything (censere). The context furnishes the more 
precise definition which Paul had in view. Vv. 2-4, 6. He denies, namely, 
that of himself he possesses the ability to settle in his judgment the means 
and ways, and, in general, the mode of discharging his apostolic duties. If he 
has just been speaking in vy. 2-4 with so much confidence of his prosper- 
ous and successful labour in Corinth, yet it is by no means his own ability, 
but the divine empowering, which enables him to determine by his own 
judgment anything regarding the discharge of his vocation. Accordingly, 
we can neither approve the meaning arbitrarily given to 1, aliquid praeclart 
(Emmerling ; van Hengel, Annot. p. 219), nor agree with Hofmann, who, 
in consistency with his reference of reroidyore to ii. 14-17, makes the apostle 
guard against the misconstruction that this, his weroi0noic, rests on zdeas 
which he forms for himself—on an estimate of his official working, accord- 
ing toa standard elaborated by his own mind. Even apart from that er- 
roneous reference of the reroityorc, the very expression ixavoi would be un- 
suitable to the meaning adopted by Hofmann, and instead of it a notion of 
presumption would rather have been in place ; the prominence given to ixavo- 
the by its being used thrice can only concern the ability which regulates the 


A464 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


official labour itself. The dogmatic exposition, disregarding the context, 
finds here the entire inability of the natural man for all good. See Augus- 
tine, de dono persev. 13, contra Pélag. 8; Calvin: ‘‘non poterat magis 
hominem nudare omni bono.” Comp. Beza, Calovius, and others, including 
Olshausen. The reference also of the words to the doctrinal contents of the 
preaching, which was not derived from his own reflection (Theodoret, Gro- 
tius, de Wette, Neander, and others), is not suggested by the connection, 
and is forbidden by the fact that a#’ éavrév does not belong to Aoyicacde at 
all (see below). This also in opposition to Osiander, who finds the meaning : 
‘‘not human, but divine thoughts lie at the root of the whole of my official 
work.” — ag’ éavrév] has its assured place after Aoyic. tv (see the critical re- 
marks). The contrast that follows (é« roi Oeot) decides what it belongs to 
in sense,—namely, not to Aeyicacbai t1, but to ixavoi éopev,—so that ixavot 
éopev Aoyicacbai tt is to be considered as going together, as one idea. Mis- 
taking this, Riickert thinks that either Paul has placed the words wrongly, 
or the order given by B C & (see the critical remarks) must be preferred. — 
On a@’ éavrov, from one’s own means, nemine suppeditante, see Wetstein. — dc 
é& gavtdv] se. ixavol dvtec Aoyic. tt, amore precise definition of the aq@’ éavr. 
inserted on purpose (making the notice thoroughly exhaustive). The pro- 
ceeding from (a7) is still more definitely marked as causal procession (éx) : 
as from ourselves, i.e. as if our ability to judge anything had its origin from 
ourselves. Wolf arbitarily refers azé to the will, and é to the power; and 
Riickert wrongly connects é& éavr. with Aoyic. ri ; it is in fact parallel to ag’ 
éavt. Paul is conscious of the ixavoy eivae Aoyicacbai 71, and ascribes it to 
himself ; but he denies that he has this ixavéry¢ of himself, or from himself. 
— 7 ixavéryc iudv] sc. Aoyicacbai tt. — Riickert finds in our passage, especially 
in ad’ éavrév, an allusion to some utterances, unknown to us, of opponents, 
which, however, cannot be proved from x. 7, and is quite a superfluous 
hypothesis. 

Ver. 6. "O¢ Kat ixdvwoev juac] bc, he who, in the sense of otro yap. See 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 64; van Hengel, Annot. 220. And xai is the 
also of the corresponding relation (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152), so that there 
is expressed the agreement between what is contained in the relative clause 
and what was said before : who also (qui idem, comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
636) has made us capable (apkovoav éxwphynoe Sbvauv, Theodoret) as ministers, 
etc. According to Bengel, Riickert (comp. also de Wette, Osiander, Hof- 
mann), the sense is: ‘‘that God has bestowed on him not only the ability 
mentioned in ver. 5, but also the more comprehensive one of a dvdxovog x.T.A.” 
But in that case the words must have stood thus: &¢ «at draxdvove Karvijc 
diabhung ikavocerv iuac. The notion of ixarvérye is thrice put in front with the 
same emphasis. Of ixavéw (Col. i. 12) only the passive, in the sense of to 
have enough, occurs in the (later) Greek writers, such as Dion. Hal. ii. 74, 
and in the LXX. — diakdvove Kawie dtabjn.| as ministers of a new covenant 
(comp. Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 15; Luke i. 2), i.e. to be such 
as serve a new covenant, as devote to it their activity. Kacy. d:af., without 
the article, is conceived qualitatively. The new covenant (Heb. xii. 24) of 
God with men, which is meant, is—in contrast to the one founded by Moses 





=> rey Pe 


OeUP TIT:,'-Os 465 


—that established by Christ, in which the fulfilling of the law is no longer 
defined as the condition of salvation, but faith in the atonement by Christ, . 
1 Cor. xi. 25 ; Rom. x. 5 ff. ; Gal. iv. 24 ff. ; Matt. xxvi. 28, — ov ypdpma- 
roc, 422d rvebu. | is since Heumann usually (also by Billroth, Riickert, Ewald) 
regarded as governed by kawvi¢ dvabjxne (Riickert, ‘‘of a covenant, which 
offers not ypauua, but zvevua”), but without reason, since the sequel, by 7 
dtaxovia tov Oavdrov and 7 diak. Tov mvebuatoc (vv. 7, 8), rather points to the 
fact that Paul has conceived ov yp. aada wv. as dependent on diaxdvove (So 
also de Wette, Neander, Osiander, Hofmann), as an appositional more pre- 
cise definition to the kavij¢ diabixnc : to be ministers not of letter (which we 
would be as ministers of the old covenant), but of spirit. Tpdupya character- 
izes the Mosaic covenant according to the specific manner in which it occurs 
and subsists, for it is established and fixed in writing (by means of the writ- 
ten letter), and thereby—although it is divine, yet without bringing with 
it and communicating any principle of inward vital efficacy—settled as ob- 
ligatory. On the other hand, zveiua characterizes the Christian covenant, 
in so far as its distinctive and essential mode of existence consists in this, 
that the divine living power of the Holy Spirit is at work in it ; through 
this, and not through a written instrument, it subsists and fulfils itself. 
Comp. Rom. ii. 29, vii. 6; Heb. x. 29, viii. 7 ff. Not letter therefore, but 
spirit, is that to which the teachers of the gospel minister, the power, whose 
influence is advanced by their labours ;7 ov yap ta raAaa rod vduov mpocdé- 
pouev ypaupata, GAAG THV KaLvav Tod Tvebuatoc dwpedv, Theodoret. It is true 
that the law also is in its nature rvevuartixde (See On Rom. vii. 14), and its 
Adyia are CHvra (see on Acts vil. 38), but it is misused by the power of sin in. 
man to his destruction, because it does not furnish the spirit which breaks 
this power. —76 yap ypduua aroxteiver, TO dé TvEvWa Cworolei| Specifies quite 
simply the reason, why God has made them capable of ministering not to 
the letter, but to the spirit. It is therefore quite unnecessary to presuppose, 


- with Fritzsche, Billroth, and Riickert, a suppressed intermediate thought 


(namely, that the new covenant is far more excellent). We may add that 
the ydép does not extend also to what follows (vv. 7, 8), so as to make the 
sentence 7d ypdupa x.r.2. merely introductory to the sequel, and the whole a 
vindication of the apostle’s referring his capacity of judgment.to God. This 
view of Hofmann is connected with his interpretation of Aoyic. 7, ver. 5, 
and has besides against it the fact, that. the weighty antithesis 7d y. ypdpua 
k.7.2. 18 neither adapted to be a mere introductory thought, nor betokened 
as being such, the more especially as it contains completely in itself the 
ground establishing what immediately precedes, and with ver. 7 a new 
discussion begins, which runs on to the end of the chapter without a break. 
— aroxreiver| does not refer to the physical death (Kiiuffer, Cay aiov. p. 75), in 
so far as that is the consequence of sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin is occasioned 
and furthered. by the law (Rom. vii: 9 ff., vi. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 56, al.). 
Against this interpretation it is decisive that according to Rom. v. 12 ff. 

1Bengel acutely and justly remarks: in proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum laud 


‘*Paulus etiam dum haec scripsit, non lit- scripsit, tamen in litera versatus est.” 
érae, Sed spiritus ministrum egit. Moses 


466 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

(see in loc.) bodily death is the consequence, extending to all, of Adam’s sin, 
and has, since Adam, reigned over all even before the law. Nor yet are we 
to understand spiritual (Billroth), ethical (de Wette, Krummel), or spiritual 
and bodily death (Riickert), or the mere sensus mortis (Bengel, comp. Nean- 
der), but according to Rom.’-vi. 21, 23, vii. 5, 9, 10, 11, 18, 24, eternal 
death,’ the opposite of the eternal life, which, by means of the Holy Spirit 
becoming operative in the heart through the gospel, is brought about for 
man who is liable to eternal death (Rom. villi. 2, 6, 10, 11)—which here 
(comp. John vi. 63) is expressed by 70 dé rvetua Cworoei, Comp. on ii. 16. 
How far the law works eternal death, is shown from Rom. vii. 5, 7 ff. ; 
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 56. Through its prohibitions, namely, it becomes for the 
power of sin in man the occasion of awakening evil desire, and therewith 
transgression sets in and the imputing of it for condemnation, whereby 
man is liable to eternal death, and that by means of the curse of the law 
which heaps up sin and’ produces the divine anger, see on ver. 9; Gal. ili. 
10. Comp. Rom. iv. 15, v. 20. After Chrysostom and his followers (also 
Ambrosiaster), Grotius explains it as: ‘‘morte violenta punit peccatores,” 
and Fritzsche : ‘‘lex supplicia sumit.” This is to be rejected, because in 
this way the law would not be the very thing that kills, but only that which 
determines death as a punishment ; and consequently no corresponding 
contrast to Cworoet would result. Finally, we can only consider as histori- 
cally remarkable the interpretation of Origen regarding the literal and mys- 
tical sense of Scripture, the former of which is injurious, the latter condu- 
cive, to salvation. Something similar is still to be found in Krause and 
ek Against the visionaries, who referred ypduua to the outward and 

vevua to the inward word, see Calovius. 

"y er. 7. Aé] leads on to a setting forth of the great glory of the Christian 
ministry, which is proved from the splendour of the ministry of Moses by a 
conclusion @ minori ad majus.? — 7 dvaxovia tev Pavatov] i.e. the ministry con- 
ducing to the rule of death ; for 76 ypaupa aroxreiver, ver. 6. Itis not the law 
itself that is meant, but the ministry of Moses, which he accomplished by 
bringing down to the people the tables of the law from Sinai. Riickert 
erroneously thinks that the whole ministry of the Levitical priesthood is meant, 


against which what follows is clearly decisive. 


1 With this is connected certainly moral 
death (the negation of the moral life), but 
only the eternal death is here meant, which 
is the consequence of the kataxpuots, ver. 9. 
This in opposition to Osiander. Nor is the 
amoxtecvee Meant of the letter conditionally 
(“*so soon as we abide by it alone and deify 
it’’), but the killing is the specific operation 
of the law ; how? see Rom. vii. 9 f. : 1 Cor. 
xv. 56. This in opposition to Ewald.—Hof- 
mann unites the various meanings of the 
death to which the sinner is liable, inasmuch 
as he defines the notion as ‘‘ the existence of 
the whole man shut out from the life of God 
and for ever.’ This collective definition of 


The reason assigned by 


the notion, however, does not relieve us 
from the Jabor of showing from the vari- 
ous contexts in what special sense death and 
dying are conceived of in the several 
passages. 

2 Without doubt this whole comparison of 
the ministry of the New Testament with 
that of Moses (vv. 7-11), as well as the sub- 
sequent shadow which is thrown on the 
conduct of Moses (ver. 13), and the digres- 
sion on the obstinacy of the Jews (vv. 14-18), 
is not put forward without a special pur- 
pose, but is an indirect polemic against the 
Judaists. Comp. Chrysostom : 6pa ras maAw 
broréuverar To ppdvnua TO lovsaikdv, ~ 


CHAP. III., %. 467 


Riickert, that Moses as peoirne ti¢ rad. diadAxne can only be treated as on a 
parallel with Christ, and not with the apostles, is not valid, since in the con- 
text the prevailing conception is not that of peoity¢ but that of dvdkovoc, and 
as such Moses is certainly parallel to the ministers of the new covenant. — év 
yodupaow évtetur. AiSoic] A comma is not to be put after ypduu. (Luther, 
Beza, Piscator, Estius, and others, including Schrader and Ewald), which 
would require the repetition of the article before év yp., and would make 
the sentence drag ; but it is: which was imprinted on stones by means of 
letters. The death-promoting ministry of Moses was really graven on stones, 
in so far as the Decalogue engraven on the two tables was actually the min- 
isterial document of Moses, as it were the registration of his office. In this 
case év ypduuacw is not something of an idle addition (in opposition to de 
Wette, who defends the reading év ypdupare, and attaches it to tod davarov), 
but in fact an element emphatically prefixed, in keeping with the process of 
argument w minori, and depicting the inferior unspiritual character. Riickert 
(forced by his reference to the service of the Levitical priesthood) errone- 
ously thinks that Paul means not only the tables of the law, but the whote 
Pentateuch, and that he has been not quite so exact in his use of the expres- 
sion (évretur. Aidore !). — éyevity év d6&y| took place in splendour, was surrounded 
by splendour, full of splendour, see Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 284 [E. T. 
330]. Bengel says rightly : ‘‘nacta est gloriam 3; yivoua jio, et cini sum, 
ver. 8. differunt.”” Comp. Fritzsche in /riteschior. Opuse. p. 284. It relates 
to the external radiance, which in the intercourse with God on Sinai passed 
from the divine glory (Ex. xxiv. 16) to the countenance of Moses, so that 
he descended from the mountain with his face shining (Ex. xxxiv. 29 ff.). 
For a Rabbinical fiction that this splendour was from the light created at 
the beginning of things, see Hisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 369 f: 
Others (Vatablus, and more recently, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert) take é d6£n, 
not of that glorious radiance, but of grandeur, glory in general. So also de 
Wette and Hofmann. But thisis opposed to the context, for in what follows 
it is not merely a visible proof of the déga which is adduced (as Riickert 
thinks), or a concrete representation of it (Hofmann), but the high degree 
(Gore) of the very défa which ts meant by éyevfdy év d6€y. It is said, indeed, 
that ver. 8, where the glory spoken of is no external one, does not admit of 
our reference. But even in ver. 8 the dé£éa is an external glory (see on ver. 
8) ; and further, we have here an argument @ minori ad majus, in which 
every reader was historically aware that the minus, the ddga of Moses, was 
an external one, while as to the majus, the déga of the ministry of the N.T., 
it was self-evident that it is before the Parousia merely something ideal, a 
spiritual possession, and only becomes also an external reality after the 
Parousia (and to this ver. 8 applies). — ore py dtvacdat x.7.2.] Philo gives 
the same account, Vit. Mos. p. 665 A; Ex. xxxiv. has only : ép0f/dnoey 
éyyioat aiz@, Which was more precisely explained by that statement. — dua 
tiv ddFav Tov mp. avt.| would have been in itself superfluous, but with the 
addition rv karapy. strengthening the conclusion it has a solemn emphasis. 
Philo, /.c., calls this d6fa : 7jAwewdéec béyyocr, — THv katapyoupévyr] ‘‘ Claritas illa 
vultus Mosis transitoria erat et modici temporis,” Estius. Ex. /.c. gives us 


468 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


no express information of this ; but ver. 13 clearly shows that Paul regardcd 
the radiance which Moses br Rent down from his converse with God as only 
temporary and gr adually ceasing, which, indeed, is self-evident and correctly 
inferred from the renewal of the radiance on each occasion. In this passing 
away of that lustre,—which even during its passing away was yet so great 
that the Israelites could not gaze fixedly on him,—Paul undoubtedly (in 
opposition to Hofmann) found a type of the ceasing of the Mosaic ministry 
(ver. 13); but in our present passage this is only hinted at in a preliminary 
way by the historical addition r. xatapy., without the latter ceasing to belong 
to the historical narration. Hence the participle is not to be taken, with 
Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others, including Riickert, in a purely present 
sense : ‘* which yet ceases,” nor in the sense of transient (Ewald), but as the 
imperfect participle ; the transitory, which was in the act of passing away. 

Ver. 8. The ministry dedicated to the Holy Spirit, i.e. forming the medium 
of His operation (the teaching ministry of the gospel), is as such the spe- 
cific opposite of the diaxovia tov Vavatov év ypappaciw évtetur. AiTorc, ver. 7. 
In rot rvebuaroc are contained the elements of contrast. See ver. 6. — éoraz| 
is not the future of the inference (Billroth, Hofmann, and the older commen- 
tators) ; nor does it refer to the advancing steady development (Osiander), 
but rather to the gloria futuri secult. Comp. on ver. 12, where the d6fa 
which is therefore not to be understood, as it usually is, of znner elevation 
and dignity—appears as the object of the éAric. We cannot therefore say 
with Bengel : ‘‘loquitur ex prospectu Y. T. in Novum,” but: loguitur ex 
prospectu praesentis seculi in futurum. 

Ver. 9. Grounding, simply by a characteristic change of the predicates 
(xataxp. and dixacociv.), of what was said in vy. 7, 8. Comp. Rom. v. 18, 
19. —1 d:axovia tie Kataxpic.| the ministry, which is the medium of condemna- 
tion. For the ministry of Moses, which communicated the Decalogue, pro- 
moted through the law sin (Rom. vii. 9 ff.), whose power it became (1 Cor. 
xv. 56), and thus realized the divine curse against the transgressors of the 
law (Gal. ili. 20). Comp. on ver. 6. The article denoted the well-known, 
solemn condemnation, Deut. xxvii. 26. —dd&a] se. éore, for the former éye- 
vpOn év 06&y is realized as present, regarded as present. Comp., subsequently, 
the present zepioceter. The substantive défa (it refers, as in ver. 7, to that 
external glory) stands as predicate in the sense of évdofoc, denoting the 
notion of the adjective more strongly, according to a current usage in Greek. 
Rom. vii. 10 ; John vi. 63 ; 1 Johniv. 8, al. See Abresch, Auctar. Dilue. 
p. 275 f. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 120. — repioceter}] The tense realizes as 
present what is future ; for the future glory of the teacher is already now an 
ideal possession. Note the accumulated strength of the expression : is in 
much higher degree superabundant in glory.. On the dative of more precise 
definition with repoceterv, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; Acts xvi. 5 ; Polyb. xviii. 
18. 5; Plut. Mor. p. 708 F. Usually in the N. T. with év, as also here in 
Elzevir. — 7% dvaxovia tic dixatociv.| the ministry, which is the medium of right- 
cousness* (comp. xi. 15) ; for it is the office of gospel teaching to preach the 


” 








1 Note the contrast of xatdxpiots and duxacoovvy, The former is an actus forensis ; so- 


J ie eee 


CHAP. III., 10. 469 


faith in Jesus Christ, by which we have righteousness before God. See 
Rom. i. 17, ili. 22 ff., 30, x. 4; Gal. iii. 18... Comp. especially, v. 21. 

Ver. 10. A more precise grounding of the previous 7oAA@ uaddov repiocetes 
x.7.A. by the highest climax of this relation. or even (kai yap) that which 
is glorious is without glory in this point by reason of the superabundant glory. 
— ow deddfacra] The chief element is prefixed, and combined into one idea 
(Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 122 ; Baeuml. p. 278): gloria destitutum est. 
The perfect denotes the continuance of what had taken place ; Kithner, II. 
p.- 70. —7d dedofacuévov| is referred to the Mosaic religious economy by Em- 
merling and Olshausen, following older expositors, quite against the con- 
text: Most refer it to the ministry of Moses, which had been made glorious 
through the radiance on his countenance, vv. 7-9. But see below. — év 
TavT® TO peper| in this respect (ix. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 16; Col. i. 16; often in 
Greek authors), is joined with 7d dedofacuévov by Fritzsche, l.c. p. 31 (also 
de Wette and Ewald) : ‘‘ quod collustratum fuit hac parte h. e. ita, ut per 
splendorem, qui in Mosis facie conspiciebatur, illustre redderetur.” But on the 
one hand—supposing that 76 dedofaou. denotes the ministry of Moses—the 
év TobTw TO wépec SO taken would be an utterly superfluous addition, since the 
reader would already have had full information in accordance with the con- 
text through 16 dedogaou. having the article ; on the other hand, we should | 
expect robTy to point to something said just before, which, however, is not 
the case, since we must go back as far as ver. 7. If, again, with Ewald, 
we take év rottw 7 péper as ‘‘in all that is Jewish, apart from what is Chris- 
tian,” and refer it to the then still subsisting state of the temple, syna- 


- gogue, etc., how enigmatically Paul would have expressed himself, without 


any hint of his meaning in the context! Following Chrysostom (xara tov 
the ovyKpicewe Adyov) and Theodoret (aroBAérur eic tobtovc, namely, to the 
ministers of the N. T.), most commentators (including Billroth, Olshausen, 
Osiander, Hofmann) join it with ov deddé., so that it would indicate the 
reference in which the sentence ov dedé6é. 7d dedo&. holds good (see Hofmann), 
and consequently would have the meaning: ‘‘ over aguinst the office of 
Moses.” But how utterly superfluous, and in fact cumbrous, would this é» 
tovTw TH wep. be if so taken, especially seeing that there still follows évexev r. 
brepB. dof., which serves to throw light upon the relation asserted ! How 
surprising would this amplification be at this very point, where the compar- 
ison is carried to the highest pitch, and the representation is so forcibly and 
pithily begun by the oxymoron ot dedd&. 7d dedo&. ! Riickert (following 
Flatt) connects also with ot deddgao7, but explains it : in this respect, that 
is, in so far as the first diaxovia was the dtaxovia tie Katakpicewc. At variance 
with the connection. For not in so far as the Mosaic diaxovia ministered to © 
condemnation and death, is its splendour darkened, but in so far as its 
splendour is outshone by a far greater splendour,—that of the diaxovia of 
the N. T. Besides, if the assumed reference of év rotrw 76 pépec were to be 
held correct, the kardxpiorc would necessarily be the principal element (pred- 


also the latter, constituted by the divine on imputation. Comp. vy. 21. This in oppo- 
act of the dixaiwors (Rom. iv. 20, ¥. 18), rests sition to Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 627 f. 


470 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


icate) in what precedes, not merely an attributive definition of the subject. 
On the whole, the following explanation, against which none but quite ir- 
relevant objections + are made, seems to be the right one : év robtw 76 péper 
is certainly to be connected with ob deddéfaorat 3 7d dedoFacuévov, however, is 
not to be taken as a designation of the Mosaic diaxovia in conereto, but sig- 
nifies that which is glorified generally, in abstracto ; so that, in addition to 
the ov dedégaora said of it, there is also given with éy rottw 76 péper the ref- 
erence to the particular concrete thing of which the apostle is speaking, the 
reference to the ministry of Moses, namely, thus: ‘‘for in this respect, i.e. 
in respect of the relation of glory in which the Mosaic dcaxovia stands to’ the 
Christian (ver. 9), itis even the case that what is glorified’ is unglorified.” 
Analogously, the déga of the moon, for instance, is no dda, when the ddéa 
of the sun beams forth (1 Cor. xv. 14). — évexev tig bmepBard. dbEnc] by rea- 
son of (Stalibaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 829 B) the superabundant glory, which 
obscures the Jdedofaouévov, exhibits its défa as relatively no défa. This ap- 
plies to the future glory of the N. T. dcaxovia, setting in at the aidv wéAAwr, 
but already conceived as present. 

Ver. 11. A justification of the foregoing expression ric imepBarr. ddEne by 
a general proposition, the application of which in conformity with the con- 
- nection is left to the reader, and the truth of which in this connection lies 
in the idea of the completion, which the facts of salvation in the O. T, have 
to find in the kingdom of God. ‘‘ Hor if that which ceases is glorious, much 
more is that which abides glorious.” —76 Kxatapyobuevor| that which is in the act 
of passing away. This the reader was to apply to the dvaxovia of Moses * 
spoken of in vv. 7-10, in so far, namely, as this ministry is in the course of 
its abolition through the preaching of the gospel by means of the draxovia 
ti¢ dixaocbvyc. Moses ceases to be lawgiver, when the gospel is preached ; 
for see Rom. x. 4. That this is the application intended by Paul, is con- 
firmed by the contrast ré wévov, which the reader was to apply to the teach- 
ing ministration of the N. T. (not to the Christian religion, as Emmerling 
and Flatt, following older commentators, think), in so far, namely, as that 
ministration is not abolished, but continues on to the Parousia (whereupon 
its glory sets in). Fritzsche is of opinion that the dvaxovia of Moses is 76 
xatapyovmevov for the reason : ‘quod ejus fulgor muneris Christiani gloria 
superatur, et ita sane xatapyeira, nullus redditur.” But in that case the 
subject of xatapyeita:, would in fact be the splendour, not the dcaxovia itself. 
This applies at the same time in opposition to Billroth, who refers 70 karapy. 
to the lustre of Moses’ office on each occasion soon disappearing, which is im- 
possible on account of dia ddEn¢. — dua d6Ene] sc. éote. dca expresses the sit- 
uation, condition, and so is a circumlocution for the adjective. Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Phileb. p. 192; Bernhardy, p. 235 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 188. 


1 The objection made by Osiander is a di- 
lemma logically incorrect. Hofmann urges 
that év rovTw 76 wéper Cannot mean: in this 
case. Butitis notatall alleged to have that 
meaning, but rather: in this point, i.e. hoc 
respectu, in the relation under discussion. 
See on this adverbial usage, C. Fr. Herm. ad 


Lucian. hist. conser. p. 8. 

2Not to the Mosaic religion in general, 
which ceases through Christ (Theodoret, 
Theophylact, and many others, including 
Emmerling and Flatt),—which is quite at 
variance with the context. See vv. 7-10. 


CHAP. III., 12, 13. AV1 


év d6&m (ver. 7) is not different in sense ; but the supposition of Estius, Bill- 
roth, Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, that dca indicates only what 
is transient, and év what is abiding, is mere fancy. Paul is fond of varying 
the prepositions in designating the same relation. Comp. Rom. iii. 30, v. 
10, xv. 2; Gal. ii. 16; Philem. 5. Comp. also Kiihner, II. p. 319. 

Ver. 12. *Eyovrec obv taabt. éar.] odv, accordingly, namely, after what has 
just been said 70A26 waAdov rd pévov év J6En, 8c. govt. Since the éAric has its 
object necessarily in the future, and not yet in the present (Rom. viii. 24), 
ro.avTn éAxic cannot denote the consciousness of the abiding glory of his office, 
which Paul possesses (Hofmann ; comp. Erasmus and others), but it must 
be the apostle’s great hope,—a hope based on the future of the Messiah's king- 
dom—that the ministry of the gospel would not fail at the Parousia of its 
glory far surpassing the défa of the ministry of Moses. This will be the 
glorious, superabundant reward of the labour of Christ’s dotAo, as promised 
by their Master (Luke xxii. 29 ff. ; John xiv. 3; Matt. xxv. 14ff., al.). 
ene eorr ii.) 14 ty. >); 2 Cor) i. 14; Phil. ii) 16; 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. 
It is the ag@apro¢ orépavoc of the faithful labour in teaching, 1 Cor. ix. 25 ff. ; 
2 Tim. iv. 8; 1 Pet. v. 4. The reference to the contents of the teaching (Em- 
merling : ‘‘tale munus quum habeam tantorum honorum spem ostendens”), 
to which Rickert is also inclined, is opposed to the words used and to the 
context. As little are we to assume, with Neander, an equalization of the 
éAric with the reroiSqoic, ver. 4, and a linking on of the thought to ver. 4. 
— Tora mappnoia xpou.| Aenotes the frank unreservedness and openness to- 
wards those with whom the teacher has to do : per’ édevdepiac ravtayou odey- 
yopeda, ovdévy aroxpurtoucvol, ovdiv brooreAAdbuevot, ovdev LdopomeEevot, aAAG capac 
Aéyovtec, Chrysostom. The evidentia (Beza, comp. Mosheim) or perspicuitas 
(Castalio) belongs to this, but does not exhaust the idea. On ypou. rappyc., 
comp. Plato, Hp. 8, p. 354 A; Phaedr. p. 240 E 3 ypou. is utimur, not uta- 
mur (Erasmus). 

Ver. 13. A negative amplification ef the roAAn rappycia ypoueSa by com- 
parison with the opposite conduct of Moses. 
TO mpdowrov juav, according to the Greek way of putting the verb, which 
is common to the principal and subordinate clause, in the subordinate 
clause, and adapting it to the subject of that clause. See Heindorf, ad Gorg. 
p. 592 A ; Winer, p. 542 [E. T. 728]: Kihner, II. p. 609. The meaning 
of the allegorical language is: ‘‘and we do not go to work veiling ourselves 
(dissembling), as Moses did, veiling his countenance, that the Israelites might 
not,” etc. See Ex. xxxiv. 33-85. — rpo¢ 76 wy atevioa x.7.2.| the purpose, , 
which Moses had in veiling his radiant face while he spoke to the people : 
the people were not (as they would otherwise have done) to fix their gaze on 
the réAo¢ tov katapyouuévov (see below). In order to free Moses from a dis- 
simulation, Wolf explained it: ‘‘ut indicaretur eos non posse intueri,” 
which, however, is not conveyed in the words, and is not to be supported 
by Luke xviii. 1 ; and Schulz and Flatt, following older commentators, 
explain that zpdc «.7.2. means 80 that, etc., which, however, is wrong both 
as to the usage of the words (comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. v. 28, p. 281) and 
as to the connection of ideas, since the roAAq rapp. yp. of ver. 12 presupposes 





kai ov| sc. TiDenev KdAvuua Ext 


4792 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


_ the intentional character of the opposite procedure. The latter remark 
applies also in opposition to de Wette (comp. before him, Beza and Calvin), 
who takes rpd¢ x.7.2. not of the intention, but of the divine aim, according 
to the well-known Biblical teleology, in which the result is regarded as 
aimed at by God, Isa. vi. 9 ; Matt. xiii. 11 ff. ; Luke viii. 10. In this way 
a conscious concealment on the part of Moses is removed ; but without sufli- 
cient ground, since that concealment must not have been regarded by Paul 
as immoral (‘‘fraudulenter,” Fritzsche), and with his reverence for the 
holy lawgiver and prophet cannot have been so regarded, but rather, in 
keeping with the preparatory destination of the Mosaic system, as a paeda- 
gogic measure which Moses adopted according to God’s command, but the 
purpose of which falls away with the emergence of that which is abiding, 
i.e. of the ministry of the gospel (Gal. iv. 1 ff.). Finally, the argument of 
usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. by the telic zpéc 76 and infini- 
tive there is never expressed the objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is 
denoted by iva and ézac), but always the subjective purpose, which one has 
in an action (Matt. v. 28, vi. 1, xiii. 30, xxii. 5; Mark xii. 22 5; Eph. vi. 
11; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. ili. 8; Jas. iil. 3, Elzevir ; also Matt. xxvi. 12). 
The point of comparison is the ‘‘ tecte agere” (Fritzsche), which was done by 
Moses with the purpose specified through the veiling of his face (not through 
the figures in which he veiled the truth, as de Wette, following Mosheim, 
imports), but 7s not done by the teachers of the gospel, since they go to 
work in their ministry freely and frankly (ver. 12). The context furnishes 
nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds in the x. od xadar. 
M. x.7.A.7 As little are we to suppose arbitrarily, with Klépper, that Paul 
had in mind not so much Moses himself as his successors (?), the Judaists.— 
ei¢ TO TéAog TOV KaTapy.]| 7d 7éAoc, by its very connection with rov kxarapy., 18 
fixed to the meaning end, and not final aim (Osiander) or completion ;? and 
row katapy. must be the same as was meant by 76 xcatapyotmevov in the applica- 
tion intended by Paul of the general proposition in ver. 11. Consequently 
it cannot be masculine (Luther, Vatablus ; even Riickert is not disinclined 
to this view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion, the end of which is 
Christ [Rom. x. 4], as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, 
most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, against which, how- 
ever, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deut. xviii. 15), according to the Messianic 
interpretation then universal, would militate ; but it must be the ministry of 
Moses, which is passing away, see on ver. 11. The Israelites were not intend- 
ed, in Paul’s opinion, at that time to. contemplate the end of this ministry, 


1“*Tf the apostle had found his ealling genitive of apposition, brings out the sense : 
only in publishing to others traditional doc- “*the transitory office of the O. T. as the 


drines, he would have thought, like Moses, 
that he must carefully distinguish between 
what he was.and what he had to teach, that 
he must keep his person in subordination to 
his ¢ask, in order not . . . to injure the ef- 
fect of what he taught.”’ : 

2 So Isenberg in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1867, 
p. 240 ff., who, regarding tov carapy. as the 


completion, after which no other institution 
could be expected.’ Thus there is ascribed 
to Moses exactly the opposite of what the 
simple words say ; Paul would have written 
something like els 70 katapyovmevov ws Td 
tédecov. The genitive ef apposition would 
here give the meaningless thought: ‘‘the 
end, which is the transitory.” 


CHAP. III., 14. 473 
which was to cease through the ministry of the gospel ; therefore Moses 
veiled his face. By what means (according to the apostle’s view), if Moses 
had not veiled himself, they would have seen the end of his office, is apparent 
from ver. 7, namely, by the disappearance of the splendour, the departure 
of which would have typically presented to them the termination of the 
dtaxovia Of Moses.” But not on this account are we to explain (with the 
scholiast in Matthaei and others, including Stolz, Billroth, Olshausen, de 
Wette, Ewald,* Hofmann) 76 xarapy. of the transient splendour itself (ver. 7), 
which is forbidden by ver. 11, and would be a confusion of the type and 
antitype. 

Vv. 14-18. Sad contrast which the procedure of the preachers of the 
‘gospel indicated in vy. 12, 13—so wholly different from the procedure of 
Moses—meets with in the hardening of Israel. How far off are they to this 
day from divine freedom ! how altogether different, however (ver. 18), it 
is with us Christians ! 

Ver. 14. ’AAW éxwpid7 x.7.2.] This a224 does not refer to the thought 
implied in the previous zpdc 70 pu) ateviom «.7.4., that the Jews did not con- 
template the end of the Mosaic ministry, for this was made impossible to 
them, in fact, by Moses himself and according to his own intention. What 
Billroth imports into aAAa is therefore also unsuitable : ‘‘bwt instead thereof 
were hardened,” etc. Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Hofmann (comp. also Ols- 
hausen) take the connection rightly, that over against the utterance treating 
of the holders of the apostolic office, ver. 12 f. stands, that which speaks of Israel. 
Accordingly aAAd is at, nevertheless. — éxwpidy| Paul does not here say by 
whom this certainly passive (in opposition to Theodoret) hardness of heart * 


1 Paul deviates, therefore, from the rep- 
resentation of Ex. xxxiv. in not abiding 
simply by the statement, that Moses veiled 
his face because the eyes of the Israelites 
could not endure the radiance—but, in con- 
nection with his typological way of regard- 
ing the fact, apprehendsit in the sense that 
Moses was induced to veil himself by the 
subjective motive of keeping out of the peo- 
ple’s sight the end of his ministry of law. (*) 

2It might be objected to our whole ex- 
planation, that, if Moses had not veiled him- 
self, the people would still not have read 
the end of the Mosaic ministry from the 
departing splendour (Billroth), nay, that 
Moses himself did not find anything of the 
kind init. But we have not here a supple- 
ment of the account in Ex. xxxiv. (Krum- 
mel); but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition 
(27) of the circumstances, which as such 
is withdrawn from historical criticism, but 
nevertheless is in accordance with the strik- 
ing aim which the apostle has in view. 
This aim was to make the wappynota of the 
stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspic- 
uous by contrast, like the light by shadow. 


(c4) 


3 Who explains it as if not eis 7d réAos Tod 
katapy., but simply eis To katapyovmevov, Were 
used. Ewald conceives the disappearance 
of the splendour as ensuing gradually dur- 
ing the age, and finally at the death of 
Moses, as Grotius also on ver. 7 represents it. 

4 twpovotat means fo be made hard (from 
the substantive mopos) not to be blinded, as 
Schleusner (Z7hes. IV. p. 541) and others, 
following the Fathers, and also Hofmann 
would take it, since there is no trace at all of 
the use among the Greeks of an adjective 
mwopos, blind, which the etymol. Gud. and 
Suidas quote. The Greeks have mipos, blind- 
ness, and mijpos, blind, but not twpos. And if 
the LXX. translate My, Job vii. 7, by w- 
povodar, and Zech. xi. 17 by éxrvfAovodar (to 
which Hofmann makes appeal), this proves 
nothing in favour of that explanation of 
mwpovovat, Since the LXX. very often, with 
exegetical freedom, render the same word 
differently according to the context. We 
mayadd that Hofmann irrelevantly com- 
pares Lucian, Amor. 46, where mypot does 
not mean d/ind at all, but has its fundamen- 
tal meaning maimed. The passage in 
Lucian means: ‘* 70 whom are the glances of 


AG4 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TILE CORINTHIANS. 


has been caused. It may be conceived as produced by God (Rom. xi. ff., 
comp. John xii. 89 f.; Acts xxviii. 26) just as well as by the devil (iv. 4, 


comp. Matt. xiii. 19), these two ways of regarding it not being contradic- 


tory to each other. The aorist denotes the hardness of heart which set in 
later after their intercourse with-Moses, but in connection with the insight 
then rendered impossible to them. Mezoépwrac would have meant something 
else. On vofjuara, thoughts, the products of the voic, of the exercise of the 
theoretic and practical reason, which, through the hardness of heart, become 
inaccesible to, and insusceptible of, the perception of the divine, comp. on 
Phil. iv. 7. —aype yap «.r.2.] A proof, in accordance with experience, for 
what was just said érwpdédy x.7.A. — 76 abtd KdAvupa én x.t.A.] The same veil 
is, of course, to be understood, not of material identity, but symbolically 
of the likeness of the spiritual hindrance. Without figure the meaning is : 
the same incapacity for recognizing the end of the Mosaie ministry, which was 
produced among them then by the veil of Moses, remains with them to this day 
when the Old Covenant is read. — éixi th avayvooe| Paul conceives the public 
reading of the O. T. every Sabbath (Acts xv. 21) as overlaid with the veil 
hindering knowledge ; still we need not assume, with Wolf, Michaelis, 
Semler, and others, a reference to the my (see Lakemacher, Odss. III. p. 


209 ff.) with which the Jews veiled themselves at the reading of the law 


and at prayer, because otherwise Paul must have made the veil fall on the 
countenances of the Jews, and not on the public reading. But he has con- 
ceived to himself the matter so, that the public reading takes place under 
the veil enwrapping this act, so that in this reading the Jews remain shut 
out from insight into the new covenant. Vv. 13 and 15 preclude us from 
abandoning the local signification of éi, on. The explanation, ‘‘ when there 
is public reading” (Hofmann), confuses the meaning with the sensuous, but 
in relation to the context appropriate, form of presenting it. —rhe mad. 
d.adixyc¢| For when the law of Moses is publicly read, there is read the old 
covenant (comp. on ver. 6) therein set forth. This is the contents of the 
public reading. Comp. ver. 15 : avaywooxera: Motoge. ’H rad. diad. does 
not mean the books of the O. T., as is here usually supposed. — 7) avaxadvr- 
Téuevov, ott év X. xatapyeitac| These words in themselves admit of two ex- 
planations ; the first refers the participle and katapyeita to 76 Kddvupa, and 
takes 67: in the sense of because, as specifying the ground of the 7 avaxad. 
(so most of the older expositors, and recently Fritzsche, Billroth, Schrader, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Hofmann, comp. Ewald) : without being 
ancovercd, because it is annihilated in Christ (the veil), but Christ is not 
preached to them. On dvaxattrrew xddAvupya, to uncover a veil, comp. LXX. 
Deut. xxii. 80 : ov« dvaxadinat ovyxddvuua Tod Tarpéc. But against this view 
(1) katapyeita: seems decisive, which, according to the context (see vv. 11, 
13), cannot apply to the taking away of the veil, but only to the abolition 
of the Mosaic ministry, or according to the connection of ver. 14, to the 
abolition of the old covenant, which is the object of the Mosaic ministry 


the eyes so blind (tvbdot), and the thoughts of the understanding so lame (mnpot)?’ Here 
mypot is a figurative expression for weakness, 


«. a aoe 0 ele 


chon eras GHAP. TTT al: 4%D 


(comp. also Rom. iii. 31; Eph. ii. 15) ; and hence Paul, ver. 16, does not 
use xatapyeirac of the removal of the veil, but epvarpeirar, which signifies the 
same thing as dvaxadiarerar. (6) If uy) advaxadurrouevov were to refer to 7d avr 
KadAvupua, then xéAvuua in the contrast introduced by a44d in ver. 15 would 
necessarily be the same veil, of which ju) avaxadinr. would be here said, and 
Paul must therefore at ver. 15 have written 7d kaAvuya with the article. 
Hence the second method of explanation’ is to be preferred, according to 
which the participle is taken absolutely, and 671 as that, while catapyeirat is 
referred to the zai. dcabijxn, thus: while it 13 not disclosed (unveiled), it re- 
mains hidden from the Jews, that in Christ the old covenant is done away, 
that in Christ-—in His appearance and in His work—the abolition of the 
Old Covenant takes place (Rom. x. 4; Col. il. 14). The whole is thus a 
more precise practical definition of the previous 70 aird kdAvuua . . . péver. 
This absolute appositional use of the neuter participle (to be regarded as 
accusative, though viewed by Hermann and others as nominative) is a cur- 
rent Greek idiom in impersonal phrases. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 769 ; 
Bernhardy, p. 471; Kriiger, § lvi. 9. 5; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 176. 
Hence Riickert is without reason in referring py dvaxarirr. to 7d KaAvupa, and 
yet understanding 67: as that and xarapyeira: of the Old Covenant, whereby 
the unwarranted importation of a thought becomes necessary, namely, to 
this effect : ‘‘the same veil rests on the reading of the O. T. and is not up- 
lifted, so that it (the people) might perceive that it (the O. T.) has its end 
in Christ.” Luther’s translation (comp. Erasmus, Beza, and Heumann) 
follows the reading 6,7. (Hlzevir), which Scholz also has again taken 
up. (1‘) This é,7¢ would have tobe explained as guippe quod (velamen), and 
would give from the nature of the veil (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 30) 
the information why it remains unlifted,—an interpretation, however, which 
would only be compatible with the jirst view given above, and even with 
that would be unnecessary. —xarapyeita:|] present ; for the fact, that in 
Christ the Old Covenant is abolished, is laid down in theoretical form as an 
article of faith, as a truth which remains veiled from the Jews so long as 
they are not converted to Christ (ver. 16). 

Ver. 15. ’AA2’] opposite of the py avaxad., brs év X. xarapy., but no longer 
connected with ydp, ver. 14 (Hofmann), since the apostle does not again mean 
the particular veil (that of Moses) to which the confirmatory clause introduced 
with ydp, ver. 14, referred. It is not disclosed, that, etc. ; till to-day, on the 
contrary, there lies a veil, etc. ; till to-day, whenever (av, in whatsoever. case) 
Moses is publicly read, their insight (comp. previously érwpdfy, etc.) is hin- 
dered and prevented. The figurative expression does not again represent the 
veil of Moses, for otherwise 7d xé2vua must necessarily (in opposition to Hof- 


1§0 among the older commentators Cas- 
talio, and recently Kypke, Flatt, Osiander, 
Maier; comp. also Krummel, who, how- 
ever, mentally supplies “by all teachers of 
the law.” 

2 Very naturally and suitably Paul chose 
the word avaxcadA., not azoxad. (in opposition 
to de Wette’s objection), since he has to do 


with the conception of a caAvupa that re- 
mains. The veil remains, since it is not 
unveiled that, etc. In this way the explana- 
tory expression is quite in keeping with the 
figure itself. Besides, avaxadvrrevy Was com- 
mon enough in the sense of to make mani- 
Fest, to make known (Tob. xii. 7,11; Polyb. 
iv. 85. 6). 


4°56 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

mann) have been used, but generally a veil, and that one placed over (éxi 
with acc.) the heart (here regarded as the centre of the practical intelli- 
gence, comp. iv. 6; Rom. i. 21 ; and see on Eph. i. 18 ; Krumm, de not. 
psych. P. p. 50; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 f. ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7. I. p. 
460) of the hearers, (1*) The tmpersonal uy avaxadurrou. of ver. 14 induced the 
apostle very naturally and with logical suitableness, not to use again in the 
contrast of ver. 15, with its emphatic stress laid on the point éw¢ ofpepor, 
that historical image of the veil of Moses, but to express the conception gen- 
crally of a veil hindering perception (lying on the heart), The same thing, 
therefore, is expressed in two forms of one figure ; the first form gives the 
figure historically (the veil of Moses on the avdyrwow rt. rad. diab.) ; the 
second form, apart from that historical reference, gives it as moulded by the 
apostle’s own vivid imagination (a veil upon the heart at the public reading). 
Fritzsche (comp. Al. Morus in Wolf) assumes that Paul imagines to him- 
sclf two veils, one on the public reading of the Old Covenant, the other on 
the hearers’ own hearts, by which he wishes to mark the high degree of 
their inaptitude for perceiving. But, in order to be understood, and in 
keeping with a state of things so peculiar, he must have brought this out 
definitely and emphatically, and have at least written in ver. 15: A227’... 
Moiofc, kal éxi tiv Kapdiay avtov Kddvupa Keita. —yvixa| at the hour when, 
guando, after Hom. Od. xxii. 198 frequent in the classic writers, but in the 
N.. T. only here and at ver. 16. Often used in the Apocrypha and the LXX, 
also at Ex. xxxiv. 84 ; and perhaps the word was suggested by the recol- 
lection of this passage. — On avayivoox. Moc. comp. Acts xv. 21. 

Ver. 16. When, however, it shall have turned to the Lord, shall have come 
to believe on Christ, the veil, which lies on their heart (ver. 15), is taken 
away ; 1.e., when Moses is read before them, it will no longer remain un- 
perceived by them that the Old Covenant ceases in Christ. The subject to 
émvotpéwn 1S 7) Kapdia aitov, ver. 15 (Luther in the gloss, Beza, Grotius, Ben- 
gel, and several others, including Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann), 
not 6 ’Iopaf#A (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, and 
many others, including Osiander), nor Mwicfc (Calvin, Estius),’ nor the 
general r/c (Origen, Storr, Flatt).—The common supposition, that in ver. 
16 there is an allegorical reference to Moses, who, returning from the people 
to God, conversed unveiled with God (Ex. xxxiv. 84), is in itself probable 
from the context, and is confirmed even by the choice of the words (Ex. J.¢. : 
qvika 0 av eioewopeveto M. évavte xupiov... mTepenpetto TO KdAvpEpmAQ), 
though the same veil with which Moses was veiled (ré aizd xad., ver. 14) is 
no longer spoken of, but a veil on the hearts of the Jews.— jvixa with av 
and the subjunctive aorist? denotes : then, when it shall have turned (Luther 
wrongly : when it turned itself), and that as something conccived, thought 


1 Calvin thinks that Moses is here tanta- 
mount in meaning to the Zaz, and that the 
sense is: When the law is referred to 


says: ‘‘Moses conversus ad Dominum 
atque retectam habens faciem, typum 
gessit populi Christiani ad Deum conversi 


Christ, when Christ is sought in the law by 
the Jews, then will the truth dawn upon 
them. LEstius, who refers xcvptov to God, 


et. revelata cordis facie salutis mysteria 
contemplantis.”’ 
2 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 73. 


CHAP. III., 17. AY’ 
of, not as an unconditioned fact. The xpdc xbpeov, however, docs not affirm : 
to God, who is now revealed in the Lord (Hofmann), but, in simple accord- 
ance with év Xpioré of ver. 15: to Christ. The conversion of Israel which 
Paul has in view is, now that it is wholly relegated to the experience of the 
future, the conversion as a whole, Rom. xi. 25. It was, however, obvious of 
itself that what is affirmed finds its application to all individual cases which 
had already occurred and were still to be expected. — repiaip. has the em- 
phasis, both of its important position at the head of the clause (removed is the 
veil) and of the future realized as present. The passive is all the more to be 
retained, seeing that the subject of ériorp. is the heart; the sense of self-lib- 
eration (Hofmann) may not be imported on account of Ex. xxxiv. 84. The 
conversion and deliverance of Israel is God’s work. See ver. 17 and Rom. 
xi. 26 f. The compound corresponds to the conception of the veil covering 
the heart round about. Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 288 E: dépwara cwoudtwv 
replatpoica, Dem. 125, 26 : mepieide ta Telyn, 802, 5 : repinpyrat Tove oTEdavove, 
Judith x. 3: rdv cdkxov, Bar. iv. 84, vi. 58 ; Acts xxvii. 40. 

Ver. 17. Remark giving information reyarding what is asserted in ver. 16. 
—0é, [the German] aber, appends not something of contrast, i.e. to Moses, 
who is the letter (Hofmann), but a clause elucidating what was just said, 
mepiaip. TO Kad.,* equivalent to namely. See Hermann, ad. Viger. p. 845 ; 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 167. Riickert (comp. de Wette) is of a different 
opinion, holding that there is here a continued chain of reasoning, so that 
Paul in vv. 16, 17 means to say : ‘‘ When the people of Israel shall have 
turned to the Lord, then will the caéaAvuua be taken from it ; and when this 
shall have happened, it will also attain the freedom (from the yoke of the 
law) which is at present wanting to it.” But, because in that case the 
édevdepia would be a more important point than the taking away of the veil, 
ver. 18 must have referred back not to the latter, but tothe former. Seeing, 
however, that ver. 18 refers back to the taking away of the veil, it is clear 
that ver. 17 is only an accessory sentence, which is intended to remove every 
doubt regarding the reprarpeita: 76 kdAvua.* Besides, if Riickert were right, 
Paul would have continued his discourse illogically ; the logical continuation 
would have been, ver. 17: ov 0& wepiarpeitac Td KdAvpa, TO TvEDWa KUpiov éoTiV’ 
ov 0& TO TY. KUp. K.T.A. —6 8 Kbptog Td TvEvuUa éoTiv] 6 Kbptog is subject, not (as 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Schulz held, 
partly in the interest of opposition to Arianism) predicate, which would be 
possible in itself, but cannot be from the connection with ver. 16.° The 


1 Bengel aptly says: ‘‘Particula aztem the minor premiss is: ‘‘this Spirit he 


ostendit, hoc versu declarari praeceden- 
tem. Conversio fit ad Dominum ut spiri- 
tum.’’ Theodoret rightly furnishes the 
definition of the 6é as making the transition 
to an explanation by the intermediate ques- 
tion : tis 5¢ obros mpds Ov Set aroBAéWar ; 

2 There is implied, namely, in ver. lv a 
syllogism, of which the major premiss is: 
od S¢ To mvedua Kvupiov, édevIepia, ‘* where 


the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ;”’ 


who is converted to the Lord has, because 
the Lord is the Spirit ;’’ the conclusion : 
‘““consequently that caAvuua can no longer 
have a place with the converted but only 
freedom.” 

3 For the most complete, historical and 
critical conspectus of the many different 
interpretations of this passage, see Krum- 
mel, p. 58 ff, 


AN8 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


words, however, cannot mean: Dominus significat Spiritum (Wetstein), 
because previously the conversion to Christ, to the actual personal Christ, 
was spoken of ; they can only mean : the Lord, however, is the Spirit, i.e. the 
Lord, however, to whom the heart is converted (note the article) ts not differ- 
ent from the (Holy) Spirit, who is’ received, namely, in conversion, and (see 
what follows) is the divine life-power that makes free. That this was meant 
not of hypostatical identity, but according to the dynamical oeconomie point 
of view, that the fellowship of Christ, into which we enter through conver- 
sion, is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, was obvious of itself to the believ- 
ing consciousness of the readers, and is also put beyond doubt by the follow- 
ing 7d rvevua kvpiov, And Christ is the Spirit zn so far as at conversion, and 
generally in the whole arrangements of salvation, He conimunicates Himself in 
the Holy Spirit, and this Spirit is lis Spirit, the living principle of the influ- 
ence and indwelling of Christ, —certainly the living ground of life in the church, 
and the spirit of its life (Hofmann), but as such just the Holy Spirit, in whom 
the Lord reveals Himself as present and savingly active. The same thought 
is contained in Rom. viii. 9-11, as is clear especially from vv. 10, 11, where 
Xpioréc and 76 svevpa Tov éyeipavtoc "Incovv and rveia Xpiorov (ver. 9) appear 
to be identical as the indwelling principle of the Christian being and life, so 
that there must necessarily lic at the bottom of it the idea : Xporéc¢ 76 rvedua 
govt. Comp. Gal. 11. 20, iv. 6, Phil. 1. 19, Acts xx. 28, along with Eph. iv. 
11. As respects His immanence, therefore, in His people, Christ is the Spirit. 
Comp. also Krummel, l.c. p. 97, who rightly remarks that, if Christ calls 
Himself the light, the way, the truth, etc., all this is included in the propo- 
sition: ‘‘the Lord is the Spirit.” Fritzsche, Déssert. I. p. 42, takes it : 
Dominus est ita Sp. St. perfusus, ut totus quasi rd xveiua sit. So also Riickert, 
who nevertheless (following Erasmus and Beza) believes it necessary to ex- 
plain the article before zvevua by retrospective reference to vv. 6, 8.1 But 
in that case the whole expression would be reduced to a mere quasi, with 
which the further inference ov 62 76 rvetua kvpiov Would not be logically in 
accord ; besides, according to analogy of Scripture elsewhere, it cannot be 
said of the exalted Christ (and yet 7¢ 7s He that is meant), ‘‘ Spiritu sancto 
perfusus est,” or ‘* Spiritu gaudet divino,” an expression which can only belong 
to Christ in His earthly state (Luke 1. 35 ; Mark i: 10; Acts i. 2, x. 38); 
whereas the glorified Christ is the sender of the Spirit, the possessor and 
disposer (comp. also Rev. ili. 1, iv. 5, v. 6), and therewith Lord of the Spirit, 
ver. 18. The weakened interpretation: ‘‘ Christ , however, imparts the 
Spirit” (Piscator, L. Cappellus, Scultetus, and others, including Emmer- 


1 Quite erroneously, since no reader spirit, a spiritual being, as John iv. 24, 


could hit on this retrospective reference, 
and also the following 10 mvedma xvpiov is 
said without any such reference. Paul, if 
he wished to express himself so as to be 
surely intelligible, could not do otherwise 
than put the article ; for, if he had written o 
S€ kVptos mvevua eott, he might have given 
rise to quite another understanding than he 
wished to express, namely: the Lord is 


mvevua Oo Meds,—a possible misinterpretation, 


which is rejected already by Chrysostom. - 


Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 45. We may add that 76 
mvevua is to be explained simply according 
to hallowed usage ofthe Holy Spirit, not, 
as Lipsius (Rechtfertiqungsl. p. 167) unrea- 
sonably presses the article, ‘‘ the whole full 
mvevaua.’’ So also Ernesti, Uspr. d. Stinde, 
ene eee 


CHAP. Tt 17. 479 
ling and Flatt), is at variance with the words, and is not to be supported 
by passages like John xiv. 6, since in these the predicates are not concretes 
but abstracts. In keeping with the view and the expression in the present 
passage are those Johannine passages in which Christ promises the commu- 
nication of the Spirit to the disciples as His own return (John xiv. 18, a.). 
Others have departed from the simple sense of the words ‘‘ Christ is the 
Spirit,” either by importing into 7d zvetua another meaning than that of the 
Holy Spirit, ov by not taking 6 ktpioc to signify the personal Christ. The 
Jormer course is inadmissible, partly on account of the following ot 62 7d 
mvevua Kupiov, partly because the absolute 7d zvevwa admits of no other mean- 
ing whatever than the habitual one ; the latter is made impossible by ver. 
16. Among those adhering to the former view are Morus: ‘‘ Quum Dom- 
inum dico, intelligo illam divinitus datam religionis scientiam ;’’ Erasmus 
and Calvin: ‘‘that 76 rvetua is the spirit of the law, which only becomes 
viva et vivifica, si a Christo inspiretur, whereby the spirit comes to the body ;” 
also Olshausen: ‘‘the Lord now is just the Spirit, of which there was men- 
tion above” (ver. 6) ; by this is to be understood the spiritual institute, the 
economy of the Spirit ; Christ, namely, fills His church with Himself ; hence 
it is itself Christ. Comp. Ewald, according to whom Christ is designated, 
in contrast with the letter and compulsion of law, as the Spirit absolutely (just 
as God is, John iv. 24). Similarly Neander. To this class belongs also the 
interpretation of Baur, which, in spite of the article in 7d tvedua, amounts 
to this, that Christ in His substantial existence is spirit, i.e. an immaterial 
substance composed of light ;* comp. his neut. Theol. p. 187 f. See, on the 
contrary, Riibiger, Christol. Paul. p. 86 f; Krummel, l.c. p. 79 fi. Among 
the adherents of the second mode of interpretation are Vorstius, Mosheim, 
Bolten : ‘‘6 kipsog is the doctrine of Jesus ;” also Billroth, who recognizes as 
its meaning : ‘‘inthe kingdom of the Lord the Spirit rules ; the essence of 
Christianity is the Spirit of the Lord, which He confers on His own.” For 
many other erroneous interpretations (among which is included that of 
Estius, Calovius, and others, who refer 6 xipzog to God, and so explain the 
words of the divinity of the Holy Spirit), see Pole and Wolf. — édevdepia] 
spiritual freedom in general, without special limitation.” To have a veil on 
the heart (see ver. 15), and to be spiritually free, are opposite; hence the 
statement repiaipeirac TO KGAvupa, ver. 16, obtains clucidation by our éAevbepia. 
The veil on the heart hinders the spiritual activity, and makes it fettered ; 
where, therefore, there is freedom, the veil must be away; but freedom 
must have its seat, where the Spirit of the Lord is, which Spirit carries on and 
governs all the thinking and willing, and removes all barriers external to its 
sway. That Paul has regard (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche) 
to the conception that the veil is an outward sign of subjection (1 Cor. xi. 


1 Weiss also, bibl. Theol. p. 308, explains it 
to the effect, that Christ in His resurrection 
received a pneumatic body composed of 
light, and therefore became entirely rvevpua 
(1 Cor. xv. 45). But the article is against 
this also. Besides, the body of Christ in 


His resurrection was not yet the body of 


light, which it is in heaven (Phil. iii. 21). 

2 Grotius understands it as lider'tas a vitiis s 
while Riickert, de Wette, and others, after 
Chrysostom, make it the freedom from 
the law of Moses. According to Erasmus, 
Paraphr., itis free virtue and love, 


480 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO TILE CORINTHIANS. 


10), is to be denied all the more, seeing that here what is spoken of is not a 
covering of the head (which would be the sign of a foreign éovsia), as 1 Cor. 
l.c., but a veiling of the heart, ver, 15. 

Ver. 18. The éAevéepia just mentioned is now further confirmed on an 
appeal to experience as in triumph,‘by setting forth the (free, unrestricted) 
relation of all Christians to the glory of Christ. The dé is the simple pera- 
Barusy, and forms the transition from the thing (é4evbepia) to the persons, In 
whom the thing presents itself in definite form. For the freedom of him 
who has the Spirit of the Lord forms the contents of ver. 18, and not sim- 
ply the thought: ‘‘ we, however, bear this Spirit of the Lord in us.” ? 
Flatt and Riickert are quite arbitrary in attaching it to ver. 14. — jueic| 
refers to the Christians in general, as the connection, the added ravrec, and 
what is affirmed of jjyeic, clearly prove. Erasmus, Cajetanus, Estius, Ben- 
gel, Michaelis, Noésselt, Stolz, Rosenmiiller are wrong in thinking that it 
refers merely to the apostles and teachers. The emphasis is not on rdvre¢ (in 
which Theodoret, Theophylact, Bengel find a contrast to the one Moses), 
but on jueic, in contrast to the Jews, ‘‘ qui fidei carent oculis,” Erasmus, — 
avakexar. tpocdrw| with unveiled countenance ; for through our conversion to 
Christ our formerly confined and fettered spiritual intuition (knowledge) 
became free and unconfined, ver. 16. After vv. 15, 16 we should expect 
avaxexavuuuévy Kapdia ; but Paul changes the figure, because he wishes here 
to represent the persons not as hearing (as in ver. 15) but as seeing, and 
therewith his conception has manifestly returned to the history of Moses, 
who appeared before God with the veil removed, Ex. xxxiv. 34. Next to 
the subject ijueic, moreover, the emphasis lies on avakexaA. tpoodrw : ‘* But 
we all, with unveiled countenance beholding the glory of the Lord in the mir- 
ror, become transformed to the same glory.” For if the beholding of the 
glory presented in the mirror should take place with covered face, the re- 
flection of this glory (‘‘speculi autem est lumen repercutere,” Emmerling) 
could not operate on the beholders to render them glorious, as, indeed, also 
in the case of Moses it was the wnveiled countenance that received the radia- 
tion of the divine glory. — ryv ddEav xvpiov| said quite without limit of the 
whole glory of the exalted Christ.? It is the divine, in so far as Christ is 
the bearer and reflection of the divine glory (Col. i. 15, ii. 9; John xvii. 
5; Heb. 1. 8) ; but cvpiov does not (in opposition to Calvin and Estius) apply 
to God, on account of vv. 16, 17. — xatorrpiféuevor] beholding in the mirror. 
For we beheld the glory of Christ in the mirror, inasmuch as we see not 
immediately its objective reality, which will only be the case in the future 


1S0 Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 
124 f. 


2 They see Him therefore as the ovvdpovos 


of the Father (Acts viii. 56), as the head of 
the church, as the possessor and bestower 
of the whole divine fulness of grace, as the 
future judge of the world, as the con- 
queror of all hostile powers, as the inter- 
cessor for His own, in short, as the wearer 
of the whole majesty which belongs to His 


kingly office. Usually 7. dofay xvp. is taken 
as including in its reference the state of 
humiliation -(see especially Calovius, de 
Wette, Osiander), the moral elevation, the 
grace and truth (John i. 14), the lifting up 
on the cross, ete. This, however, is con- 
trary to the parallel with the history of 
Moses, who saw the supernatural glory of 
Cod that might not otherwise be beheld. 
Grotius indicates the right view. 


s Gg. 


ae ia 


CHAP. III., 18. 481 
kingdom of God (John xvii. 24; 1 John iii. 2; Col. iii. 3 f. ; Rom. viii, 
17 f.), but only its representation in the gospel ; for the gospel is 76 evayy. tHe 
dd6Ene To’ Xprorov, iv. 4, consequently, as it were, the mirror, in which the 
glory of Christ gives itself to be seen and shines in its very image to the eye 
of faith ; hence the believing heart (Osiander), which is rather the organ of 
-beholding, cannot be conceived as the mirror. Hunnius aptly remarks that 
Paul is saying, ‘‘nos non ad modum Judaeorum caecutire, sed retecta facie 
gloriam Domini in evangelii speculo relucentem intueri.” Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 
12, where likewise the gospel is conceived of as a mirror, as respects, 
however, the still imperfect vision which it brings about. 
in the active means to mirror, i.e. to show in the mirror (Plut. Mor. p. 894 
D) ; but in the middle it means among the Greeks to look into, to behold 
oneself in a mirror. To this head belong Athen. xv. p. 687 C, and all the 
passages in Wetstein, also Artemidorus, ii. 7, which passage is erroneously 
adduced by Wolf and others for the meaning : ‘‘to see in the mirror.” But 
this latter signification, which is that occurring in the passage now before 
us, is unquestionably found in Philo (Loesner, Odss. p. 804). See especially 
Alleg. p. 79 E: yndé xatortpicaiuny év dAdAw tii Thy onv iWéav } év col TE OeG. 
Pelagius (‘‘contemplamur”), Grotius,’ Riickert, and others quite give up 
the conception of a mirror, and retain only the notion of beholding ; but this 
is mere caprice, which quite overlooks as well the correct position of the 
case to which the word aptly corresponds, as also the reference which the 
following eixéva has to the conception of the mirror. Chrysostom and his 
successors, Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth and 
Olshausen, think that xatorrpifecba: means to reflect, to beam back the lustre, 
so that, in parallel with Moses, the glory of Christ is beaming ; 7 xcafapa 
Kapdia zH¢ Oeiac ddEn¢ oidv TL éxuayeiov Kai KatoTTpov yiverat, Theodoret. (J*) 
Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr., and Luther’s gloss: ‘‘as the mirror catches an 
image, so our heart catches the knowledge of Christ.” But at variance 
with the usage of the language, for the mzddle never has this meaning ; and 
at variance with the context, for dvakexad. mpooor» must, according to vv. 
14-17, refer to the conception of free and unhindered seeing. — rv adbriy 
eixdva pwetapopd.| we become transformed to the same image, t.e. become so 
transformed that the same image which we see in the mirror—the image of 
the glory of Christ—presents itself on us, 7.e. as regards the substantia 
meaning : we are so transformed that we become like to the glorified Christ. 
Now, seeing that this transformation appears as caused by and contempo- 
raneous with dvaxex. mpoo. Tr. 06&. kK. Katoxtp., consequently not as a future 
sudden act (like the transfiguration at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. ; comp. 
Phil. iii. 21), but as something at present in the course of development, it 
can only be the spiritual transformation to the very likeness of the glorified 
Christ’ that is meant (comp. 2 Pet. i. 4; Gal. iv. 19, 11. 20), and not the 


/ 
KaTOTTpiCw 


1 “xaromtprg., 2.€. attente spectantes, quo- nantis gloria.” 


modo et Latini dicunt speculari, nimirum 
quia qui speculum consulunt omnia singu- 
latim intuentur. Sic Christiani attente 
meditantur, quanta sit Christi in coelis reg- 


2 Comp. Calovius: “Illa autem petraudp- 
dwors neutiquam essentialis est, ut fanatici 
volunt, quum in substantiam Christi trans- 
formari nequeamus, sed mystica et spir- 


482 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


future oddéa (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olshausen would have it ineluded). 
Against this latter may be urged also the subsequent xafdtep ad kupiov rveb- 
patoc, Which has its reference precisely to the spiritual transformation, that 
takes place in the present aidv, and the sequel of which is the future 
Messianic glory to which we are-called (1 Thess. ii. 12 ; Rom. viii. 30) ; so 
that the present spiritual process, the xavérnc Cof¢e (Rom. vi. 4) and 
mvevuatoc (Rom. vii. 6)—the spiritual being risen with and living with 
Christ (Rom. vi. 5 ff.)—experiences at the Parousia also the corresponding 
outward ovvdofacb#va with Christ, and is thus completed, Col. iii. 4. — ry 
avTyy eixdva] is not to be explained either by supplying xara or eic, or by 
quoting the analogy of rapaxaieicbar rapdxAnow and the like (Hofmann), 
but the construction of yerayopdoty with the accusative is formed quite like 
the commonly occurring combination of wetaBarreww with the accusative in 
the sense : to assume a shape through alteration or transmutation undergone. 
See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 424 C. The passive turn given to it, in 
which the accusative remains unaltered (Kriiger, § lil. 4. 6; Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 164 [E. T. 190]}), yields therefore the sense : we are so trans- 
formed, that we get thereby the same image. — and d6&n¢ ei¢ déEav] 7.€. so that 
this transformation issues from glory (viz. from the glory of Christ beheld in 
the mirror and reflected on us), and has glory as its result (namely, our glory, 
see above). Comp. ii. 16, also Rom. i. 17. So in the main the Greek 
Fathers (yet referring ard dé6éyc, according to their view of a7d kupiov rvet- 
paroc, to the glory of the Holy Spirit), Vatablus, Bengel, Fritzsche, Billroth, 
and others, also Hofmann. But most expositors (including Flatt, Riickert, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald) explain it of ascending to ever higher 
(and at length highest, 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.) glory. Comp. é dvvdueuc ei¢ dbvapcv, 
Ps. Ixxxiv. 7, also Jer. ix. 2. In this way, however, the correlation of this 
ar6é with the following (aro «vp. rv.) is neglected, although for azo. . . 
el¢ expressions like amd Oaddcone cig O4Aaccav (Xen. Hell. i. 8 4) might be 
compared. — xafarep ard Kupiov rvebuatoc| so as from the Lord of the Spirit, 
people, namely, are transformed, petapudpdworg yiverat. In this there lies a 
confirmation of the asserted 77 aityv . . . défav. Erasmus rightly observes : 
“¢ Se hic non sonat similitudinem sed congruentiam.” Comp. ii. 17; John 
i. 14, al. Lord of the Spirit (x*) (the words are rightly so connected by 
‘‘neoterici quidam’” in KEstius, Emmerling, Vater, Fritzsche, Billroth, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Kling, Krummel ; comp. however, 
also at an earlier date, Erasmus, Annot.) is Christ, in so far as the operation 
of the Holy Spirit depends on Christ ; for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of 
Christ (ver. 17; Rom. viii. 9 f. ; Gal. iv. 6), in so far as Christ Himself 
rules through the Spirit in the hearts (Rom. viii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. ili. 16 f.) ; 
the sending of the Spirit, * is brought about through Christ (Tit. iii. 6), 


ftualis ... quum ejusdem et justitiae per. 6. According to John (xv. 26, xvi. 7), Christ 
fidem, et. gloriae per gratiosam communi- also sends the Spirit, though not indepen- 
cationem adeoque et divinae ejus naturae dently, but in the way of interceding with 
participes reddimur.” the Father (xiv. 16); comp. also Acts ii. 23. 


1 The sender himself is, according to Paul, Hence there is no contradiction between 
not Christ, but God, 1 Cor. ii. 12, vi. 19; 2 Paul and John. ; 
Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 8; Tit. iii. 


a ve = oUF 


NOTES. 483 
and by His operations service is done to Christ (1 Cor. xii. 5). Here, too, 
the relation of subordination in the divine Trinity is most distinctly expressed. * 
Why, however, is Christ here named kbpioc rvebuatog ? Because that spir- 
itual. metamorphosis, which proceeds from Christ, cannot take place 
otherwise than by the influence of the Holy Spirit on us. The explana- 
tions : @ Domini spiritu? and a Domino spiritu, i.e. a Domino qui est spir- 
itus* agree, indeed, with the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated: by the 
church, but deviate without reason or warrant from the normal order of 
the words (comp. ver. 17, and see Buttmann, neut. Gramm. p. 295 [E. T. 
343]), in particular, from the genitive-relation which quite obviously sug- 
_ gests itself. Riickert hesitatingly allows a choice between the two erro- 
neous views. 


Notes py AMERICAN EpITor. 


(Bt) * Written in our hearts.’’ Ver. 2. 


‘* Anything of which a man is certain, or of which he has a conviction 
founded upon his inward experience, may be said to be written on his heart. 
That the Corinthians were his epistle was to the Apostle a matter of conscious- 
ness. It was a letter which he could neither misunderstand nor be ignorant 
of” (Hodge). 


(ct) ‘* Such confidence.”’ Ver. 4. 


Not trust, as in the A. V., but confidence, and such as did not quail even under 
the eye of God. That it was as humble as it was strong, that it was in no 
sense self-confidence, is shown by the verses that follow. 


(p*) ‘A new covenant.’’ Ver. 6. 


The adjective here employed (kainos) has more than a temporal force like 
neos. The sense is, not an old and worn-out covenant, but one qualitatively 
different from all that had gone before, instinct with youth and energy ; nota 
written word, but a living spirit. 

The letter (the law) kills, (1) by demanding perfect obedience, which no man 
can render ; (2) by producing the knowledge of sin and guilt, and so of just 
exposure to God’s wrath ; (3) by exasperating the soul in holding forth to it 
the high standard of duty which it has no power or inclination toobey. The 
Spirit (the gospel), on the other hand, gives life, (1) by revealing a perfect and: 
gratuitous righteousness ; (2) by revealing God’s love and awakening hope in- 


1 The qualitative interpretation of the 
genitive, like warp oixtipy, i. 3 (de Wette, 
““ whose whole character or whole efficacy 
is spirit’), is inadmissible, because mvedpma, 
in accordance with the context, must be 
the Holy Spirit as respects the notion of 
subsistence (the person of the Spirit). 

2 Syriac, Vulgate, Augustine, Theophy- 
lact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, 
Grotius, Bengel, and others, including 


Schrader and Hofmann. 

3 Chrysostom: dépa mas Kai évtadda Td 
mvevj.a KUptov KaAec Theodoret, Valla, Luther, 
Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Estius, and several 
others, including Flatt and Neander. 
Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 
p. 125, according to whom Christ is here 
designated as xvpios mvedua. But he is pre- 
cisely not so designated, butas xvpios wve v- 
MaTOS. 


484 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


stead of fear ; (3) by transforming the soul through the Holy Ghost, so that it 
reflects the image of God. 


(n*) ‘‘ Shall be with glory.’ Ver. 8. 


Meyer’s reference here to the Parousia is wholly uncalled for. The manifest 
comparison is between the outward brightness of the temporary old dispensa- 
tion and the transcendent inward splendour of the new and lasting economy. 

What was a bright cloud overhanging the cherubim to the light of God’s 
presence filling the soul?’—The same remark may be made in reference to 
what the author says on ver. 12.. There is nothing in the words themselves 
or the connection to lead one to think that the Apostle looks forward to the 
Parousia. On the contrary, the reference is to the present superiority of the 
gospel and its ministry to the law and the ministry of Moses. 


(F*) The reason of Moses’s veil. Ver 13 (note). 


It is not necessary to call Paul’s statement of the reason of Moses’s veiling 
his face a deviation from the account in Exodus. It is simply an addition, 
and there is no inconsistency in the two accounts. The veiling had both 
effects. It calmed the fears of the people, and it prevented their seeing how 
fleeting the brightness was, 


(a*) Rabbinic-allegorical exposition. Ver. 13 (note). 


There is no necessity of assuming that the Apostle was indebted for his lan- 
guage to any such method of interpretation. The words of Exodus xxxiv. 33 
are incorrectly rendered in the Authorized Version by inserting till. The true 
version as given in the LXX. is, ‘‘And when he had made an end of speaking 
with them, he put a veil on his face.’’ The face of Moses was unveiled when 
he came fresh from the presence of Jehovah, and veiled only after he had de- 
livered God’s commands and the people had seen the glory. Paul declares 
that one object of this was that the people might not see the end (termination), 
the fading away, of this glory. Who has any right to say that this was not 
actually the fact? As Prof. C. A. Briggs says (Presb. Review, i. 566), ‘‘The 
face of Moses needed a new illumination from the Theophany every time he 
addressed the people from Jehovah. But the face of Christ needed no new il- 
lumination—the glory abode therein forever. The face of Moses was veiled 
that he might not be humiliated and the people might not be discouraged or 
rendered irreverent by seeing the glory gradually becoming fainter and fainter 
till it disappeared.”’ 


(u*) ** That it is done away in Christ.” Ver. 14. 


Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort read ér1, which Kling, Hodge, and Waite 
render because ; but Conybeare, Alford, Stanley, Beet, Plumptre, and Principal 
Brown, that, viz. ‘‘it not being revealed that,’’ etc., as Meyer and the margin 
of the Revised Version. As a veil covered Moses’s face, hiding from Israel 
the fact that its glory was fading, so the open page of the Old Covenant, even 
while being read, was veiled, since it was not yet made known to the conscious- 
ness of these readers that that covenant (not of course as a rule of life, for in 





NOTES. 485 


that sense it is established by the Gospel, Matt. v. 17, but as a basis of ap- 
‘proach to God and acceptance with Him) is done away. In other words, the 
book was veiled. 


(1*) **A veil lieth upon their heart.’’ Ver, 15. 


The metaphor is changed while the word is kept, in order to show that the 
real hindrance is not in the book, but in the hearts of the readers. 


(34) ‘* Reflecting as a mirror.” Ver. 18. 


This sense is adopted in the text of the Revised Version, but in the margin 
(which is preferred by the American Committee) the better rendering of 
A. V., Kling, Hodge, Waite, Beet, and Plumptre is given—beholding as in a mirror. 
Stanley’s argument to the contrary, though able, is not convincing. 


(K*) ‘* The Lord of the Spirit.’’ Ver. 18. 


This rendering, although linguistically possible, is incongruous with New 
Testament usage, and therefore not to be adopted without necessity. Whereas, 
to translate ‘‘the Lord (who is) the Spirit” (Kling, Stanley, Brown, Plump- 
tre) gives the usual sense of two nouns thus placed (Rom. i, 7; Gal. i. 1, 3, 
-etc.), and is in strict consistency with the immediate context. See ver. 17. 
There the Apostle had said, ‘‘ The Lord is the Spirit,’’ and here, he says, the 
transforming power by which we are made like Christ flows from ‘the Lord 
who is the Spirit.” Hodge explains the phrase as meaning the Lord who is 
one with the Spirit, the same in substance, equal in power and glory ; who is 
where the Spirit is, and does what the Spirit does. 


486 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 4. aiydoat] A, 10, 17, 23, 31, and several Fathers have diavyadca: ; C D E, 
73, Or. (once) Eus, al. have xatavydoat. So Lachm. on the margin. Two more 
precise definitions to accord with the context. The avroic¢c that follows (in Elz.) 
has decisive evidence against it, and is an addition. — Ver. 6. Adupa:] Lachm. 
reads Aduper, following A B D* &* 67** Aeth. But the evidence of almost all 
the Versions and all the Fathers is against it ; and how easily Adupe: might 
occur to the copyists through remembrance of the direct address in Gen. 
i. 3!— The omission of the following é¢ (D* F G 36, It. Chrys. and several 
Fathers), as well as the weakly-supported readings wc, odzoc, and ipse, are cor- 
rections arising from not understanding the sense. —7Tod Gov] Lachm. reads 
avTod, On no preponderating evidence. A change for the sake of the style ; for 
if it had been aro originally, there would have been no uncertainty whatever 
about the reference, and so no reason for glossing it by tov Oe0v. — ’Ina0s] is 
to be deleted, according to A B 17, Or. (once) al., with Lachm. Tisch. and 
Riick. — Ver. 10. rod ’Incot] Elz. has rod xvpiov “Incov, against decisive testi- 
mony. — Ver. 12. 6 @dv.] Elz. has 6 yév Oav., against decisive testimony. — Ver. 
14. dvd *Inoov] Lachm. Tisch. Riick. and also Reiche (Comm. crit. I. p. 351 f.) 
have ody ’Inood, following BC DE FG W&* 6, 17, 31, Copt. Slav. Vulg. It. Tert. 
Ambros. Pel. Rightly ; the ody ’Incod appeared unsuitable in point of time to 
the resurrection of the dead. — Ver. 16: 6 éow9ev] Lachm. and Riick. read 6 éow 
nuav, following preponderating evidence, indeed ; but it is evidently a change 
in accordance with what goes before. — Ver. 17. After rapavtixa, D* E F G 31, 
Syr. Arr. Arm. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have mpécxa:pov kai. A gloss, which 
has crept in, of tupavtika. Comp. Theodoret : did tov rapavtixa éderée TH Bpaxd 
TE Ka) TpdoKaLpoV, 

Remark.—In the Codex Alexandrinus all from iv. 138, éziorevoa, xxii. 6 
inclusive, is wanting through mutilation, 


ConTENTS.—Continuation of the theme begun in iii. 12 f. (vv. 1-6); 
relation of the external state, so full of suffering, to the glory of the office 
(vv. 7-18). 

Ver. 1. Acad tovro] Paul now reverts, it is true, to what had been begun in 
iii. 12 f., but had, owing to the comparison with Moses and the discussion 
thence arising about the hardening of the Jews and the freedom contrasted 
with it (iii. 14-18), remained without further elucidation, but reverts in 
such a way that he attaches it to what immediately precedes by did rovro. 
Therefore, since the Christians are so highly privileged as was specified in 
iii. 17, 18, we become, in the possession of the office, which ministers to this 
Christian freedom and glorification. . . not dejected. — xaboc HAe40.| a modal 
definition, full of humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10, vii. 25), to &yovte¢ 7. dia. 
tabr. : ‘having this ministry in accordance with the (divine) mercy imparted 





oo ide Be 


CHAP. 1V., 2. 487 


to us.” The important practical bearing of this addition is aptly indicated 
by Bengel : ‘‘ Misericordia Dei, per quam ministerium accipitur, facit stren- 
uos et sinceros.”’ —ov« éxxaxotpev}| Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Westcott and 
Hort], and Riickert, following A B D* FG &, read éyxaxodwev (comp. ver. 
16 ; Luke xviii. 1 ; Gal. vi. 9; Eph. iii. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 13). But this 
appears to be a correction, since only éyxaxeiv, and not éxxaxeiy (which is 
here the reading of C D*** E K L), occurs for certain out of the N. T. and 
the Fathers and ancient lexicographers. Polyb. iv. 19. 10 ; Theodotion, 
Prov. iii. 11, Symmachus, Gen. xxvii. 46; Num. xxi. 5; Isa. vii. 16. 
Comp. éyxaxyorc, Symmachus, Ps. cxix. 143. Probably éxcaxeity was at that 
time only in oral use, and came first through Paul and Luke into the lan- 
guage of ecclesiastical writings. It means, however, to become cowardly, to 


lose courage.  Hesychius, 7dnudvycev' éexdxgoev 5 Suidas, éfexaxyoa’ arnyé- 


pevoa. The contrast in ver. 2 is not adverse to this signification ; for the 
becoming dejected through any kind of difficulties (with Pelagius, Theo- 
doret, Oecumenius, Beza, and others, to think only of szfferings is arbitra- 
ry) leads easily to kpurra tae aicyivyc, While bold, brave, unweakened cour- 
age disdains such things. Comp. the demeanour of Luther. Hence Riickert 
is mistaken in holding that, for the sake of the contrast, we must assume 
the general signification : to abandon oneself to badness, a signification Which 
cannot elsewhere be made good for éy«ax. or for écxax. (in Polybius, iv. 19. 
10, évexdxyoay means, ‘‘they were lazy’). Chrysostom is in substance cor- 
rect : ov katarintouev, GAAG Kal yaipouev Kat Tappyorafoueba. The opposite is 
the preservation of the holy avdpia (1 Cor. xvi. 13). 

Ver. 2. Contrast to otk éxxaxotuev in reference to antagonistic teachers. — 
aremapuela| we have renounced, we have put away from us. Comp. Homer, Ll. 
xix. 85, 75 ; Plato, Legg. xi. p. 928D ; Polyb. xiv. 9.6 ; and inthe middle, 
in this sense, Herod. i. 205, iv. 120, vii. 14 ; often in Polyb. ; also Callim. 
Hymn. in Dian. 174: anxd'0 eirato ré0u1a Tatpwr, Aelian, H. N. vi. 1: ray 
axdAaotov Koitny areixato TavTeAds macav. Regarding the aorist middle, ame- 
maunv, see Thomas M. p. 57 ; Moeris, p. 29 ; Kiihner, I. p. 817, ed. 2. —ra 
KpunTa TtHo aioxivyc| asin 1 Cor. iv. 5, Ta Kp. Tod oxdrove, the hidden things of 
shame, 1.e. what shame (the sense of honour, verecundia) hides,’ does not allow 
to come to the light. This is to be left quite general : ‘‘ All that one, because 
he is ashamed of it, does not permit to become manifest,” but, on the contrary, 
Kpudy Kadorrec kapdia (Soph. Antig. 1239) ; & xpirrew dei wal cvonidlew aicyv- 


vouévovcg Kat épv0pravtac, Chrysostom. All special limitations, such as to secret 


plans and intrigues (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Emmerling and 
Billroth), or to the disfiguring (Calvin) or hiding (de Wette) of the truth, or to 
secret fear of men (Ewald), or to hidden, disgraceful arts of jfleshly wisdom 
(Neander), or to secret means and ways to which the preacher of Chris- 


1 aicxvvy in the subjective sense (Plato, Def. iii. 19 (‘‘ which brings disgrace,’’ de Wette ; 
p. 416: doBos emt mpocdoxia adofias). See, Osiander, ‘‘shameful secrecy’’), would 
especially, Ecclus. iv. 21, xx. 20f., xli. 16. make it necessary to import the thought: 
Comp. Dem. 43, 6: Tots éAcudépous peyiatyny “if it becomes manifest.” Zeger: “quae 
dvayxyy eivar Thy UTép TOV TpayLaTwV aidxvryY. manifestata probro sunt perpetranti.” 

The objective interpretation, disgrace, Phil. 


488 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tianity, who is ashamed of Christianity, has recourse (Hofmann), or even to 
circumcision (Theodoret), or to promises not made good (Chrysostom), or to a 
hypocritical habit (Theophylact), or even to obscoenas voluptates (Estius, Krebs), 
are without warrant ; for Paul proceeds from the general to the par- 
ticular, so that it is only in what’follows, when referring more pointedly to 
his opponents, that he adduces particular forms of the xpurra tHe alayivyc. — 
ph Tepir. K.7.2.]| 80 that we walk not, etc. The apostle means his demeanour 
in the ministry. — dorovvteg 7. Adyov t. Oeod| adulterating the word of God. 
Lucian, Herm. 59 ; LXX. Ps. xv. 3. It is done by alterations and foreign 
admixtures. Comp. ll. 17, i. 12. — rf davepdce: tic aAn0.| through the mani- 
Festation of the truth (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 7), 7.e. by making the truth contained 
in the gospel (the truth «av éoy#v) public, or, in other words, a clearly pre- 
sented object of knowledge. The contrast gives a special occasion here for 
designating the contents of the gospel by 7 aAffeva. On the subject-matter, 
comp. Rom. i. 16. — cvordrtec éavtotc¢] The emphasis of the contrast lay in 
Th gavep. T. ad. 3 but, on the contrary, through nothing else than through the 
proclamation of the truth commending ourselves. But even in this ‘‘ commend- 
ing ourselves” there clearly lies a contrasting reference to the antagonistic 
_ teachers, who accused the apostle of self-praise (iii. 1), but on their part not 
merely by letters of recommendation, but even by intrigues (év ravovpyia, xi. 
3, xii. 16; Eph. iv. 14; Luke xx. 23) and by adulteration of the gospel 
(doAovrtec Tov Ady. tT. Oeod) sought to make themselves honoured and beloved 
among others. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 3, 4. Overlooking this, Riickert recom- 
mends for over. the general meaning of laying down, setting forth, proving 
(Rom. v. 8). —pd¢ racav ovveid. avOpér.| pé¢ used of the ethical direction. 
The essential meaning is, indeed, not different from rpoc rv ovveidnjow ravTwv 
tov avOporev (for which it is often taken, even by Riickert), but it is other- 
wise conceived, namely : ‘‘ to every human conscience.” Comp. Rom. ii. 9. 
Note how Paul here ascribes to every man the capacity of moral judgment, 
and thus also the knowledge of the moral law as the propositio major of the 
inference of conscience. If now, however, refractory minds, through per- 
verted moral judgment or moral stubbornness, were unwilling to recognize 
this de facto self-recommendation made uniformly and without rpoowroAnpia, 
the matter remained the same on the part of the apostle ; hence it is not, with 
Grotius, to be explained only of the ‘‘ bonae conscientiae,” against the mean- 
ing of the words. — évér. tod Oeov] applies to ovoravtec . . . avOpatur ; 80 
that this our self-recommendation is made in God's presence. This denotes 
the highest sincerity and honesty in the subjectivity of the person acting, 
who knows that God (rév roi cvverddrocg éxértyv, Theodoret) is present as eye- 
witness. Comp. ii. 17, vii. 12 ; Gal. i. 20. 

Ver. 3. Against the assertion just made, 4214 rH davepdoer TIj¢ GAnBeiag . . . 
Geov, it might be objected : ‘‘and yet your gospel is xexadvupévov ! is by so 
many not at all known as the daA#Geca !’ Wherefore Paul continues, ‘‘ even 
if that were the case, still it is so only with regard to the aroAAbpevor Whom 
the devil has blinded, and hence cannot be urged against the former asser- 
tion.” — ei d2 kai gore xexad.| In this admission the placing of éor before 
xexad. conveys the meaning : but if even it is the case that, etc. The figura- 


CHAP. Iv., 4. 489 
tive xexad. was suggested by the still fresh remembrance of iii. 14. — 16 ebayy. 
juav| the gospel preached by us, the Pauline gospel. —év toig aroddvu.] i.e. 
among those who (for certain) incur the eternal arédea. See on ii. 15 ; 1 
Cor.i.18. é is not nota dativi (Flatt), nor yet quod attinet ad (Bengel), 
but ¢nter, in their circle. Riickert takes it : in their hearts, on account of ili. 
15. So also Osiander. But against the analogy of ii. 15 ; besides, accord- 
ing to iii. 15, itis the heart of the dzoAdbuevor, and not the gospel, which 
must be represented as the veiled subject. It has not at all reached the 
hearts of the persons concerned. (1*) 

_ Ver. 4. A statement to establish the év toic aroAAvp. éore kexad., so that év 
oic is equivalent to érz év robroue (comp. on ili. 6): in whom the devil has made 
blind, t.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the un- 
believing (vofuara, as in ili. 14).* It is his work to make the unbelieving 
blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront 
the light of the gospel ; and this his characteristic gpyov he has carried out 
in the aroAAbyevo: ; in their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of 
blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving. Observe, accordingly, that the 
conception of the aroAAtuevor is @ narrower one than that of the dmora. Not 
with all dxvoro does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel 
his object of blinding them and making them azoAAipyevor ; many so com- 
port themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and 
owlduevor (1 Cor. xiv. 24 f.; Acts xiii. 48, 11. 40, 47 ; Matt. xiii. 8, 23). (ar‘) 
Hence 7tév ariorwy is neither aimless (the objection of Hofmann), nor is it, 
with Riickert, to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, 
in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly 
prominent, that the aroAdipevor are the dziora, have appended the apposi- 
tional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche, whom Billroth 
follows, takes rév azior. proleptically : ‘‘hoc effectu ut nullam haberent fidem.” 
But the proleptic use of adjectives (see on 1 Cor. i. 8) is nowhere found 
with the genitive of an adjective used substantively ; it must have run 
érbdhuce Ta vohuata ariora.* Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Phil. iii. 21. Quite arbi- 
trarily, most of the older expositors (also Grotius, Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt) 
explain it in such a way that rv aziorwr fills the place of an apposition to 
év oc. Inthat case it must have run : év roi¢ aricrore (See, especially, Borne- 
mann, Schol. in Luc. p. 178). According to Ewald, Paul has inserted the 
addition téy azior., as if he meant thereby merely to say: ‘‘the Gentile 
thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers. 
But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication, 
as the reader had to find in roi¢ aroAAvu. Gentiles and Jews, consequently in 
Tay axior. no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hof- 
mann, év oi¢ is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this do- 


1Comp. Homer, Od. xx. 346: pvnotnpot 
6 IlaAAds “Adjvn ... mapémAayge vonua, 
Pind. Ol. vii. 183, xii. 13; Plat. Phaed. p. 96 
C; Lucian, Vigr. 4. 

2 According to Fritzsche, the unbelief ap- 
pears as effect of the blinding, consequently 
as a refusal of belief, as ametdera. In our 


view, it appears as defectus fidet and the 
devil steps in with his blinding, and makes 
out of the dmorot the viods THs amewWetas 
(Eph. v.6; Col. iii. 6). As regards the con- 
tents of the thought, therefore, the two 
views are not contradictory. 


rd 


490 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


main is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which 
there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbeliey- 
ing. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever 
for limiting the azoAAbuevor to the sphere of the Gentile world ; they form, in 
general, a contrast to the cwf{duevoc, as also at ii. 15, i. 18, and to the jueic 
mavrec, Ui. 18, who are just the cwfduevoc. Finally, it is to be observed asa 
mere historical point, that Irenaeus (Haer. iv. 48), Origen, Tertullian (contra 
Mare. iv. 11), Chrysostom, Augustine (¢. advers. leg. ii. 7. 8), Oecumenius, 
Theodoret, Theophylact (also Knatchbull), with a view to oppose the dual- 
ism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined tov aidvog robrov with rév 
anlotwv (infidelium hujus saeculi).—6 Oed¢ tov aidvo¢g tobr.| the God of this 
(running on till the Parousia) period. On the subject-matter, comp. John 
vill. 44, xii. 31, xiv. 80; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 9 f. The devil; as 
ruling principle, is called god. Comp. Phil. i. 19. Among the Rabbins, 
also, it is said : ‘‘ Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael,” 
Jalkut Rubeni, f. 10. 4, ad Gen. i. 27. Comp. the passages in Eisenmenger, 
Eintdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 827, where he is called the ‘strange god and the other 
god. There is not something ironical in the expression here (Olshausen), for 
that would be quite alien to the connection ; on the contrary, with the ut- 
most earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to 
be made palpably evident. Comp. Bengel. (N*)—eic 76 wy avydoa x.T.A.] 
Purpose of the devil: 2m order that the tllumination should not shine, etc. 
For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded.’ Hence it is quite 
unnecessary to explain abydoa, to see, or to have an eye upon (Luther, Grotius, 
Emmerling, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann), which signification (more exactly, 
to direct the light of the eyes to anything) undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets 
(Soph. Phil. 217 ; Eur. Rhes. 793 ; more frequently in the middle, as Jliad, 
xxii. 458 ; Elmsley, ad Baech. 596 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 338), but is 
foreign even to the LXX. (Lev. xiil. 25 f., 28, 39, xiv. 56). Besides, the simple 
avyafew does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meaning /ulgere 
(though the compounds xaravydfevv and dcavydfecv, Which are the readings of 
several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense : iradiate, illumine, 
ase.g. Eur. Hee. 637. — doriopudc | ilumining, is found in Sextus Empiricus, 522. 
9; Plut. Mor. 920 D; more often in the LXX., in Aquila, Theodotion, and 
Symmachus. Without figure, the meaning is : im order that the enlightening 
truth of the gospel might not be known and appropriated by them. — tie d6Ene¢ 
tov Xpiotov| The glory of the exalted Christ (comp. ili. 18) is here denoted as 
the contents of the Messianic preaching ; elsewhere (1 Cor. i. 18) it is the 
word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement 
of the context, and both rightly (Rom. iv. 25, v. 10, a/.); for the dé&a is the 
consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned (Phil. ii. 6 
ff.; Rom. viii. 34, al. ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; often in John), and it conditions the 
future completion of the work of the cross (Phil. ii. 10 f. ; Rom. viii. 34 ; Heb. 
vil. 25; 1 Cor. xv.; Col. iii. 3 f.). — 6¢ gore eixav 7. Veo | for Christ in the state 


1 Hofmann very wrongly, since he him- words, objects that this explanation would 
self recognizes the lofty poetic turn of the require the (not genuine) avtots, 


oar £ => . = ee 


v 





CHAP. IV., 5. 491 


of His exaltation * isagain, as He was before His incarnation (comp. John xvii. 
5), fully év popd} Yeod and ica tem (Phil. ii. 6), hence in His glorified cor- 
poreality (Phil. iii. 21) the visible image of the invisible God. See on Col. 
i, 15; comp. Heb. i. 3. It is true that in the state of His humiliation He 
had likewise the divine défa, which He possessed kara rvetua dytwobvyg 
(Rom. i. 4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth (John i. 14), 
and through His miracles (John ii. 11), He made known (John xiv. 9) ; but 
its working and revelation were limited by His humiliation to man’s estate, 
and He had divested Himself of the divine appearance (Phil. ii.7 f.) till in 
the end, furnished through His resurrection with the mighty attestation of 
His divine sonship (Rom. i. 4), He entered, through His elevation to the 
right hand of God, into the full communion of the glory of the Father, in 
which he is now the God-man, the very image and reflection of God, and 
will one day come to execute judgment and to establish the kingdom.— Aim 
of the addition: ‘‘hine satis intelligi potest, quanta sit gloria Christi,” 
Bengel ; it is the highest and holiest of all, and of the knowledge of it Satan 
deprives those whom he blinds ! . 

Ver. 5. What is gospel (76 evayy. judv) proclaimed, he has just described 
as that which is most glorious and sublime, namely, the d6éa tot Xpicrod, 
é¢ éorwv x.t.A. And that nothing else than this is the lofty contents of his 
preaching, he now establishes, and that under an antithetic point of view, 
which (comp. ili. 1) takes into account hostile calumny. This antithetic 
aim so fully justifies the reference of the ydp to what immediately precedes, 
and the emphasis laid on Xpcor. ’Iyo. as Kipiov, as well as the contents of ver. 
6, so obviously confirms it, that we have no warrant for going back with ydp 
to iii. 1, even if we include vv. 3-5 (Hofmann). — éavrove kypicc.| In virtue 
of the contrast that follows (Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 25), cupiove might 
be supplied (de Wette and others, also my own view hitherto), and with 
this i. 24 might be compared. But since it was self-evident that he did 
not preach himself as Lord, and this could not be attributed to him even by 
his opponents, however much they may have accused him of selfish conduct, 
it is better (comp. Hofmann) to let the expression retain its quite general 
character : not ourselves, not our own persons, their insight, standing, re- 
pute, and other interests, do we make the contents and aim of our preaching. 
— xtpiov| as Lord. In this lies the whole great confessional contents of his 
preaching, which absolutely excludes all desire for self-assertion ; comp. 
Phil. ii. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3. This xépcov also is to be left quite in its general- 
ity,’ so that the following iuév has no joint reference to it (Hofmann). — 
61a ’Iyoovv| This it is by which the relation of service to the readers (dotAoue 
juav) is conditioned. For on His account, not irrespectively of Him, we 
are your servants. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 1. Todo the will of Jesus, and to 
carry on His work—this it is which determines us to be your servants, 7.¢. 
to do our labour for your service; only in this respect, in this relation of 


/ 
1Forit isthe Zxalted Oneof whom Paul 2'The whole majesty of Christ (ver. 4) lies 
is tninking. Comp. > a Urspr. ad. Stinde, in this one predicate. 
p. 212 f. 


492 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


service to you, do we preach ourselves, which, therefore, is something quite 
different from the éavr. xypvoc. before denied. 

Ver. 6. Confirmation of the above, and not simply of the concluding 
words of ver. 5 (éavrov¢ dé dobAove «.t.A.), but of the entire ver. 5. For it is 
God who has bestowed on us sweh enlightenment, and for such behoof as is 
declared in ver. 6 ; how should we not be far exalted above the preaching of 
ourselves instead of Christ as the Lord, and how could we proclaim ourselves 
otherwise than simply én the relation of serviceableness to you, serviceableness 
for Christ’s sake !|—‘‘ For God, who bade light shine out of darkness, it is who 
caused it to shine in our hearts, in order that we should make the knowledge of the 
divine glory give light in the presence of Christ.” Apart from this figurative 
clothing, the sense is : Hor it is God, the creator of light, who bestowed on us the 
spiritual light communicated to us, not that we might retain it for ourselves 
without further communication, but that we should convey the knowledge of the 
divine glory to others in making this knowledge manifest to them in Christ, whom 
we teach them to know. As to the construction, 6¢ is not to be taken as 
equivalent to oiroc (Vorstius, Mosheim, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Schrader ; 
comp. Theodoret and Luther), nor is é¢ to be deleted (Riickert hesitates 
between the two), but éori is to be supplied, and supplied before d¢ éAapuwev 
(so, rightly, most of the commentators ’), not immediately after 6 Yedc (Valla, 
Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Bengel, Vater, Ewald), because it is only with é¢ 
éxauwev that the important idea is introduced, and because Paul has written 
bc and not 6¢ cai. On account of the 6c «.7.A. that follows it is impossible, 
with Hofmann, to regard the sentence érz 6 Yedc as far as Adupae (‘‘ for it is 
God who... has bidden to shine”) as a complete and perfect sentence. — 
6 eirav éx oKdtove d&¢ Adupat] gui jussit, etc. Reminiscence of Gen. i. 3,? in 
order to preparé for the following é¢ éAauwev «.7.A., which is meant to appear 
as analogous to the physical working of Godin the creation. ‘‘ Saepe compa- 
rantur beneficia creationis veteris et novae,” Grotius. The emergence of 
the light of the holy truth in Christ from amid the sinful darkness of un- 
truth (Hofmann) is not as yet spoken of ; this spiritual fact only finds its 
expression in what follows, and has here merely the way prepared for it by 
the corresponding physical creation of light. — é« may doubtless mean im- 
mediately after (Emmerling), see Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 463 ; Jacobs, ad Ael. 
p. 464 ; but in the N. T. it does not so occur, and here ‘‘ forth out of dark- 
ness” is far more in keeping with graphic vividness, for such is the position 
of the matter when what is dark becomes lighted up ; comp. LXX. Job 
XXXVii. 15. — é¢ ZAapwev év Tr. apd. ju.| This 6¢ cannot be referred to Christ, 
with Hofmann, who compares irrelevantly Heb. v. 7 (where Christ is in fact 
the chief subject of what immediately precedes), but it applies to God. 
Whether é2auyev is intransitive (Chrysostom and most expositors): he shone, 
which would have to be explained from the idea of the indwelling of God 
by means of the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 23; 1 Cor. iii. 16, xiv. 25), or 


1 Comp. also Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. supposes an allusion to Isa. lx. 1, Job xii. | 
p. 338 [E. T. 395]. 22, or to some lost passage. 
2 Ewald, following the reading Adupe, 


. 
. ® 4% 4 
Wied 2s 6 i i an hs ie De 





CHAP. Iv., 6. = 493 


whether it is factitive: who made it (namely, dec) shine (Grotius, Bengel, 
Emmerling, Fritzsche), as avaréAAew is used in Matt. v. 45, and even Adu- 
ev in the poets (Eur. Phoen. 226, and the passages in Matthiae, p. 944 ; 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 58, VII. p. 378, VIII. p. 199; ad Del. Epigr. p. 
62; Lobeck, ad Adj. p. 94, ed. 2), is decided from the context by the pre- 
ceding physical analogy, which makes the factitiwe sense in keeping with 
the eimav Aduyac most probable. If the progress of thought had been : 
“who himself shone” (Chrysostom, Theodoret), the text must have run, é¢ 
avToc éAauwev. God has wrought in the hearts of the apostolic teachers, 
spiritually creating light, just as physically as at the creation He called light 
out of the darkness. Hofmann, in consequence of his referring é¢ to Christ, 
wrongly explains it: ‘‘ within them has been repeated that which took 
place in the word when Christ appeared in it.” On the point itself in refer- 
ence to Paul, see Gal. 1. 16. — mpdc¢ dwticpov x.t.A.| for the purpose of lighting 
(ver. 4), etc., equivalent to zpd¢ 7d dorifery THY yvdow x.t.4., in order that 
there may lighten, etc., by which is set forth the thought : ‘in order that the 
knowledge of the divine glory may be conveyed and diffused from us to 
others through the preaching of Christ.” For if the knowledge remains 
undiffused, it has not the nature of a thing that lightens, whose light is 
received by the eyes of men. — év rpooérw Xpiotov| belongs to zpoc¢ dwricpudy, 
but cannot be explained in persona Christi, i.e. in nomine Christi, as Estius 
explains it after the Latin Fathers, but it specifies where the knowledge of 
the divine glory is to lighten : in the presence of Christ. For Christ is eixov 
vow Seov, and Christians see unveiled the glory of Christ, iii. 18. He, there- 
fore, who converts others to Christ makes the knowledge of the divine glory 
become clear-shining to them, and that in the countenance of the Lord, which 
is beheld in the gospel as the reflection of the divine glory, so that in this 
seen countenance that clear-shining knowledge has the sowrce of its light (as 
it were, its focus). Probably there is in év rpocéz@ Xpioroid a reminiscence 
of iii. 7. The connection of év rpocdrw Xp. with rpdc¢ dwrioudv has been justly 
recognized by Estius, and established as the only right one by Fritzsche 
(Dissert. Il. p. 170, and ad Rom. I. p. 188), whom Billroth follows, for the 
usual way of connecting it with ric dééy¢ rt. beod (comp. also Hofmann : 
“‘the glory of God visible in Christ”) would of necessity require ric repeated 
after Sext, since défais not a verbal substantive like gwricpdc, and conse- 
quently, without repeating the article, Paul would necessarily have written 
tHe Tow Seow dbEnc év Tpoowr. Xp. (see Kriiger, §§ 50, 9, 9, and 8). The objec- 
tion of de Wette against our view—an objection raised substantially by Hof- 
mann also—that the yvdoic is the subjective possession of the apostle, and 
cannot therefore become light-giving in the face of Christ, leaves out of 
consideration the fact that the yvéow is objectivized. Conveyed through 
preaching, the yvaorc of the divine glory gives light (it would not give light 
otherwise), and its light-giving has its seat and source of issue on the counte- 
nance of Christ, because it is this, the glory of: which is brought to view in 
the mirror of preaching (iii. 18).—Note, further, how there is something 
clumsy but majestic in the entire mode of expression, rpdc¢ . . . Xpcotov, es- 
pecially in the accumulation of the four genitives, as in ver. 4. (0*) 


494 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 7 ff. The apostle now (on to ver. 10) turns to the relation which 
the outward position, seemingly quite incongruous, bears to so glorious a 
calling. This pertained to the completeness of his Apologia, and to him— 
even without special attacks of opponents on this side—it thus most natu- 
rally suggested itself ! We must put aside the supposition that his oppo- 
nents had reproached him with his bodily weakness and persecutions (see, 
especially, Calvin, Estius, Mosheim, Flatt, Emmerling) as testimonies 
against genuine apostleship, since such a reproach, which must have affected 
not him only, but the apostolic teachers in general, is in itself quite improb- 
able, and no trace of it is found in the whole of the following section. Still 
this section also is certainly not without indirect polemic bearing ; for Paul, 
owing to the peculiarity of his apostolic character, had borne and suffered 
far more than the rival Judaistic teachers ; and hence there was in the re- 
~ lation of his afflictions to his working quite a peculiar holy triwmph for him 
over his foes. Compare the noble effusion in xii. 28 ff. 

Ver. 7, Aé] merely carrying on the train of thought : Now to compare 
our outward position with this high vocation, we have, etc. — riv Syoaupov 
tovrov] is referred either, in accordance with ver. 6, to the light kindled by God 
in the heart (Grotius, Flatt, Riickert, and others), or to the ministerium evan- 
gelit (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, and others). According to ver. 
6, the inward divine enlightening (rpi¢ dwticpuov k.t.2.) is meant, and this defi- 
nition of aim (rpoc ¢wr.) embraces in itself the ministerium evang. — év oorpa- 
kivowe oxsveow | in vessels of clay. Contrast with dycavpév, because, for such a 
treasure, some more costly and lasting vessel seems suitable. Corip. the 
opposite in Arrian, Hpict. ili. 9: ypvod oKebyn, dotpaxivov dé Adyov. We may 
add that Paul, who, in fact, speaks here not of himself alone (observe the 
plur. cxeteovy, and ver. 6, capdiacc), wishes not to affirm some special weakness 
of himself, but to say generally : Though we have so glorious a trust, yet is 
our body, the outward organ of our working, subject to the lot of being easily de- 
structible. Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, most com- 
mentators have rightly found in oxebeow a figurative designation of the body ; 
while Billroth and Riickert, following Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, 
understand the whole personality. Against the latter view we may urge as 
well the characteristic ‘dorpaxivorc, which can refer only to the corporeal part 
(comp. Gen. ll. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 47), as also ver. 16 and v. 1 ff. For examples 
of the use of dorpdxivov cxedoc * for the easily destructible corporeality (as Ar- 
temidorus, vi. 25 : Gdvarov pév yap eixétw¢ éohuawe TH yvvatkt TO elvac év doTpakivy 
oxever), see Wetstein. —iva 7 brepBoay x.t.A.] The design of God in this, 
namely, in order that the abundant fulness of power, which comes to be ap- 
plied, namely, in our ministry working pic gwriopov x.7.A., ver. 6, in spite 
of all sufferings and persecutions (see what follows), may appear as the prop- 
erty of God, and not as proceeding from us. The context furnishes that spe- 
cial reference of the irepGody tHc duvdu. The opposite of the conception of 
trepBoan is EAAeuc (Plato, Protag. 356 A, Def. p, 415 A, al.).— Kat pH 2& 


1 To this category does not belong Plato, by Osiander, but there the body is figura- 
Phaedr. p. 250,C, which passage iscompared tively presented as mussel (6aTpeor). 





CHAP. Iv., 8—10. 495 


juov] Kat uy yusic voyuldueda Katopdovv && savtdy Ti, GAA mavtec of dpovTeg Tod — 
Seod Aéywow elvac t5 av, Theophylact. — The 7 is to be taken logice of the 
being, which presents itself to cognition ; as often with Paul (Rom. ili. 26, 
4,19, vii. 13). Riickert denies this, but comes back himself to the same 
view by giving the meaning thus : God wishes to be the One, and {fo be rec- 
ognized as such, who alone, etc. The explanation of Tertullian, the Vulgate, 
Estius, according to which ry dvvdu. is connected with rod Yeot, is against 
the order of the words. 

Vv. 8-10. A proof, based on experience, how this abundant power makes 

itself known as the power of God in the sufferings of the apostolic calling ; 
so that, in spite of the earthen vessels, ver. 7, the apostolic working advances 
steadily and successfully. — év ravri] having reference to all the first clauses 
of vv. 8 and 9, is neither to be supplemented by loco (Beza, Rosenmiiller), 
nor isit: in all that I do (Hofmann), but is to be left general: in every 
way. Comp. vii. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 5 ; and see on 2 Cor. xi. 6. Comp. the clas- 
sic év ravi kaxov eiva, Plat. Rep. p. 579 B 3; ei¢ wav xaxod agexveioSa, Herod. 
vii. 118, and the like. — 8A:Béouevor x.7.2.] hard pressed, but not being driv- 
en into straits. [Pressed for room, but still having room.—Stanley.| Matters 
do not come so far as that, in virtue of the abundance of the power of God ! 
Kypke rightly says : orevoywpia angustias hoc loco denotat tales, e quibus 
non detur exitus.” For see vi. 4, xii. 10. Comp. Bengel. The reference 
of crevoy. to inward oppression and anwicty (Hrasmus, Luther, and many 
others) anticipates what follows. — azopotpevor x.t.2.) being brought into doubt 
(perplexity, where we cannot help ourselves), but not into despair. Comp. 
FS , 
Ver. 9. Being persecuted, but not left (by God) in the lurch (Plato, Cone. p. 
179 A : éyxatadureiv cat un Bondjoa). [Stanley explains: ‘‘ Pursued in our 
flight, but not left behind as a prey to our pursuers.”] Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 
16 ; Heb. xiii. 5. Paul here varies the mode of presentation; since the con- 
trast does not again negative an action of enemies. Lydius (Agonistic. sacr. 
24, p. 84 ff.), Hammond, and Olshausen think that we have here the figure 
of a foot-race, in which the runner overtaken éyxataieirera (see the passages 
in Lydius); but the figure would be unsuitable, since the runners have a 
common goal (1 Cor. ix. 24). Hostile persecution in general is meant. 
Comp. diwyydc, xii. 10 ; Rom. viii. 35 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, al. — xaraBardou. x.7.A. 
Figure of those seized in the act of flight, who are thrown to the ground (Hom. 
Odyss. iv. 344, vill. 508 ; Herod. ix. 63), but not deprived of life. This part 
thus appears in a most suitable relation of climax to what precedes ; hence 
we should not think, as many do, of wrestlers in the games (comp. Plato, 
Hipp. min. p. 374 A). (P*) 

Ver. 10. Extreme concentration of all suffering, as of all victory through 
the power of God. In this rdvrore, corresponding to the év ravri of ver. 8 
and the ae of ver. 11, is with great emphasis placed .first. The véxpworc is 
the putting to death, like the classic Gavdtwore (Thucyd. v. 9. 7). In this 


1 There is no contradiction between this in a definite relation. Here, however, the 
passage and i. 8, where an actual ¢faro- mental attitude asa whole is portrayed in 
peta dae is affirmed only of a single case, and single, grand strokes. 


496 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


case the context decides whether it is to be taken in a literal or, as in Rom. 
iv. 19, in a figurative sense. Comp. Astrampsychus in Suidas : vexpod¢ dpav 
- véxpwow erg tpaypatwv, Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. p. 418; Aret. pp. 23, 48 ; 
also arovéxpwore in Arrian, Hpict. i. 5. Here it stands, as ver. 11 proves, in 
a literal sense : At all times we bear about the putting to death of Jesus in our 
body, i.e. at all times, in our apostolic movements, our body is exposed to the same 
putting to death which Jesus suffered, i.e. to violent deprivation of life for the 
gospel’s sake. 'The constantly imminent danger of this death, and the con- 
stant actual persecutions and maltreatments, make the véxpwore tov "Inood, in 
the conception of the sufferer as of the observer, appear as something cling- 
ing to the body of the person concerned, which he carries about with it, al- 
though, till the final actual martyrdom, it remains incomplete and, in so far, 
resting on a prolepsis of the conception. On the subject-matter, comp. Rom. 
viii. 85 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 815 Phil. ii. 10. The gen. rod ’Inooi, however, is 
not to be taken as propter Jeswm (Vatablus and others, including Emmerling), 
nor ad exemplum Christi (Grotius, Flatt), but quite as in ta ra@juata Tow 
Xpiorod, 1. 5 ; and it is altogether arbitrary to understand anything more 
special than the great danger to life generally involved in the continual persecu- 
tionsand afflictions (xi. 23 ff.),—as e.g. Eichhorn takes it to refer to wounds 
received in the apostolic ministry (Gal. vi. 17), and Riickert, here again (see 
on i. 8), to the alleged sickness, from which Paul had not yet fully recovered. 
The right view is already given in Chrysostom : of Gdvarot of kadnuepwoi, dv 
ov Kai 4 avdotaore édeixvuTo. Comp. Pelagius. But r. véxpwow is chosen (not 
7. Javatov), because Paul has inmind the course of events leading to the death 
suffered by Jesus, which is mirrored in his own sufferings for Christ’s sake. 
—iva xai 4 Cor «.7.2.] in order that also the life of Jesus, etc. This is the 
blessed relation supervening according to God’s purpose. Just as, namely, 
the continual sufferings and peril of death appear as the véxpwarc of Jesus in 
the body of those persecuted, so, in keeping with that view, their rescued 
life appears as the same (w4, which, in the case of Jesus, followed after His 
dying, through the resurrection from death (Rom. v. 10). The victorious 
surmounting of the sufferings and perils of death, from which one emerges 
saved as regards the body, is, according to the analogy of the conception of 
the véxpworc tod "Inoov, resurrection ; and thus there becomes manifest, in the 
body of him that is rescued, the same life which Jesus entered on at His 
bodily resurrection. If, with Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Estius, Mosheim, and 
others (comp. Flatt and also Hofmann), we should regard the preservation 
and rescuing as evineing the effectual operation of the bodily glorified Jesus, 
there would be unnecessarily introduced a different position of matters in 
the two parts of the verse ; as the véxpwore itself is thought of in the one 
case, we must in the other also understand the Cw# itself (not an effect of it). 
According to de Wette and Osiander, the thought of the apostle is, that in 
his ineradicable energy of spirit in suffering there is revealed Christ’s power 
of suffering, in virtue of which He has risen and lives for ever ; comp. 
Beza. In that case a moral revelation of life would be meant, and to this év 
TQ o@pate juav (comp. ver. 11) would not be suitable. — Notice, further, how, 
in ver. 10 f., Paul names only the name ’Incotc, and how repeatedly he 





CHAP) LY.,.1 1; 497 


uses it. ‘‘ Singulariter sensit dulcedinem ejus,” Bengel. As bearer of the 
dying and living of the Lord in his body, he has before his eyes and in his 
heart, with the ibeneak feeling of fellowship, the conerete human manifesta- 
tion, Jesus. Even the exalted One is, and remains to him, Jesus. A con- 
trast between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ, for whom the former 
is again deprived of life (Holsten), 1s, as the clause expressive of purpose 
shows, not to be thought of. 

Ver. 11. An elucidation, and therewith a confirmation of ver. 10. — de 
(comp. vi. 10) is distinguished from zdyrore as respects the form of the con- 
ception, just as always or continually from at all times. Comp. the classical 
del dca Biov, Heindorf, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 75 D ; also the Homeric oi dei Peol. 
— jusic ot COvtec] brings out, by way of contrast, the dei ei¢ Vdvarov rapadibueVa: 
we who live, so that in this way the constant devotion to death looks all the 
more tragic, since the living appear as liable to constant dying. We are con- 
tinuously the living prey of death! The reference of Grotius, ‘‘ qui nondum 
ex hac vita excessimus, ut multi jam Christianorum,” is alien to the context. 
Further, it can neither.mean : as long as we live (Calvin, Beza by way of 
suggestion, Mosheim, Zachariae, Flatt, de Wette), nor : who still, in spite of 
perils of death: remain ever in life (Estius, Bengel, Riickert), which latter 
would anticipate the clause of aim, iva x.7.4. In accordance with his view of 
ver. 10, Osiander (comp. Bisping) takes it of the spirztwal life in the power 
of faith. — rapadidou.| by the persecutors, ver. 8 f. —év rH Svyry capxi ju. | 
designation of the cua (ver. 10) as respects its material weakness and tran- 
sitoriness, whereby the ¢avepwbjva of the (a7) roi ’Ijood is meant to be 
rendered palpable by means of the contrast. In év 76 céwats, ver. 10, and 
év tH Svyth oapki, ver. 11, there is a climax of the terms used.  Riickert 
thinks, wrongly, that the expression would be highly unsuitable, if in what 
precedes he were speaking of nothing but persecutions. It was in fact the 
mortal cdpé, which might so easily have succumbed to such afflictions as are 
described, ¢.g., in xi. 23 ff. —iva kal x.r.2.] an emphatic repetition of the 
clause of aim contained in ver. 10, with a still stronger prominence given 
to the element there denoted by év 76 cépari judv, on account of which éyr. 
Ov. oapki yudv is here placed at the end. There is implied in it a triwmph. 
Comp. on the thought of vv. 10, 11, Ignatius, Magnes. 6: édv pw aidaipétoc 
éyouev TO aroVaveiv eic TO avtow (Christ’s) rd doc, TO SHv adTov ovK sore év Huiv. 

Ver. 12. An inference from ver. 11 ; hence the meaning can be no other 
than : Accordingly, since we are Bocsnanils exposed to death, it is death 
whose working clings to us ; but since the revelation of the life of Jesus in us, 
goes to benefit you through our work in our vocation, the power opposed to 
death, life, is that which exercises its working on you. 6 Savaro¢c and 7 Caf can, 
according to vy. 10 and 11, be nothing else than the bodily death and the 
bodily life, both conceived of as personal powers, and consequently the life 
not as existent in Jesus (Hofmann). It was death to which Paul and those 
like him were ever given up, and it was life which, in spite of all deadly 
perils, retained the victory and remained at And this victorious: 
power of life, presenting i in His servants the life of the risen Lord, was active 
(comp. Phil. 1. 22, 24) through the continuance thereby rendered possible of 


498 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the apostolic working among the Christians, and especially among the Corin- 
thians (év iuiv), although they were not affected in like manner by that work- 
ing of death. Estius (following Lombard) and Grotius (comp. Olshausen) take 
évepy. passively: ‘‘in nobis . ... mors agitur et exercetur . . . ut vicissim 
. . . per nostra pericula nostramque quotidianam mortem vobis gignitur, 
augetur, perficitur vita spiritualis” (Estius). But in the N. T. évepy. never 
occurs ina passive sense (see oni. 6), and according to vv. 10, 11, 7 Ca7 
cannot be vita spiritualis, as even Osiander (comp. Ewald) here again inter- 
prets it. Calvin, Menochius, and Michaelis find in it something ¢ronical : 
we are in continual deadly peril, while you are in comfort. Comp, Chrysos- 
tom, who, however, does not expressly signalize the ironical character of 
the passage. On ¢jv, vita frui, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 70 ; comp. 
Civ kat eivat, Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 239. But the context gives no 
suggestion whatever of irony or of any such reference of 7% Cw (ipetc dé év 
avécel, THY éK TObTOY TOV KiVdbvoY KapTobmevor Co#v, Chrysostom). As foreign 


to it is Riickert’s view, which refers the first half of the verse to Paul’s, 


alleged sickness, and the second half to the state of health of the Corinthians, 
which, as Paul had recently learned through Titus, had considerably im- 
proved after a sickness that had been prevalent (1 Cor. xi. 30).—We may 
add that the first clause is set down without uév, because Paul purposely 
avoids paving the way for the contrast, in order thereupon to bring it for- 
ward by way of surprise. ‘‘Infert particula dé novam rem cum aliqua oppo- 
sitione,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 356. 

Ver. 13. A remark giving information (dé, see on iii. 17) on 7 68 Car év byiv. 
For through the wioretouev, 01d kai AaAovuev, is that very 7 Can év bpiv évepyei- 
za rendered possible and brought about. The connection of ideas is fre- 
quently taken thus : ‘‘ Though death works in us and life in you, we have 
yet the certain confidence that we too will partake of the life.” Comp. 
Estius, Flatt, Riickert. But in that case the relation of the two verses, 13 
and 14, would be logically inverted, and the participial clause in ver. 14 
would be made the principal clause ; Paul must logically have written : 
“* Because, however, we have the same spirit of faith, which David expresses in 
the words, etc., we know,” etc. According to Olshausen, Paul wishes to rep- 
resent the thought that his career, so full of suffering, is a source of life to 
the Corinthians, as a living certainty wrought in him from above. But 
apart from the erroneous explanation of 7 dé Co? év iuiv, on which this is 
based (see on ver. 12), the very fact—the 7 Cay év iyiv évepyeitac—was some- 
thing consonant to experience, and hence Paul in ver. 13 gives nothing else 
than an elucidation consonant to experience. According to de Wette (comp. 
before him, Erasmus, Paraphr., who inserts the intermediate thought : nec 
tamen ob id nos poenitet evangelii), the course of thought is: ‘‘ But this work- 
ing of death hinders us not from preaching the gospel boldly, since the hope of 
the resurrection strengthens us.” In this way, however, he arbitrarily passes 
over the immediately preceding thought, 7 dé Cw? év tuiv, to which, never- 
theless, ver. 13 supplies an appropriate elucidation. According to Hofmann, 
Paul brings in a modification of the contrast contained in ver. 12, when he 
says that he has, while death works in him, still the same spirit as exists in 


CHAP. Iv., 14. 499 


those in whom life works. But there is no hint of this retrospective refer- 
ence of 7d airé (which would have required a ody tuiv or something similar) ; 
and not even the thought in itself would be suitable, since his being in pos- 
session of the same spirit which his disciples, in whom his life was in fact 
at work, possessed, would be self-evident, and not a special point to be 
brought into prominence and asserted by the apostle. This also in opposi- ' 
tion to Erasmus, Estius, Bengel, Schrader, and others, who explain 76 airé : 
the same spirit, which you have. — 76 airs rvevipua Tipe TicTewe| i.e. the same Holy 
Spirit working faith, not : the believing frame of mind (de Wette, comp. 
also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 176), which is not the meaning of rvevua in 
Rom. viii. 15, xi. 8 ; 1 Cor. iv. 21; Gal. vi.1; Eph. i. 17. 16 airéis the same 
which is made known in the following saying of Scripture, consequently the same 
as the Psalmist had. With this hero of faith the apostle knows himself to be 
on an equality in faith.’ The riorze which the Spirit works was with the 
Psalmist trust in God, with Paul faith in the salvation in Christ ; with both, 
therefore, the same fundamental disposition of pious confidence in God’s 
promise (Heb. i. 11). — xara ro yeyp.| in conformity, in agreement with what is 
written. This belongs to kal jyeic miorebowev, for if it belonged to éyovre¢ 
(Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Ewald, and many others), airé would be superflu- 
ous. — ériotevoa, did éAddAnoal I have become a believer, therefore have I let 
myself be heard, Ps. cxvi. 10, after the LXX., in which the translation of 
238 °3 “AID is incorrect, but might be retained by Paul, all the more 
seeing that in the original is contained the idea that the speaking proceed- 
ed from faith? (I trusted, jor I spoke). — xai rjueic] we too, like the Psalmist. 
Hofmann, on the other hand, in accordance with his inappropriate view of 
TO auTo Tvevua T. w., UDderstands it: ‘‘in common with those, who have the 
same spirit.” — 610 kai AaAoipev| on. which account we also let ourselves be heard, 
are not silent, but preach the gospel. Through this it happens that 7 07 év 
juiv évepyeita. Seeon ver.12. Thexai before Aad. is the also of the relation 
corresponding (to the riorebouev). 

Ver. 14. Encouraging assurance accompanying this AaAoiuev (not Its con- 
tents) ; since we are certain that, etc. Comp. Rom. v. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 58. —6 
éyeipac T. k. "Iyo.]| Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Rom. viii. 11. This designation 
of God contains the ground of faith for the conviction about to be express- 
ed. — kal nuac adv "Inoodt éyepet k. tapaot. odv buiv| This is usually understood 
of the actual resurrection from the dead, and of the presenting before the 
judgment-seat of Christ. And this view is the right one, partly because it 
alone is in keeping with the definite expressions, partly because it is in the 
highest degree suitable to the connection, when Paul here at the close of 
what he says regarding his sufferings and perils of death expresses the cer- 
tainty of the last and swpreme consummation as the deepest ground of his 
all-defying courage of faith. This amid all afflictions is his cavyaodac én’ 


1 There is ground for assuming that Paul 2¥or the very different meanings given to 
looked on David as the author of Ps. exvi., the text of the original (Hupfeld, Ewald, 7 
which no doubt belongs to a far later time ; have faith, when I speak), see Hupfeld on Ps. 
it was customary, in fact, to ascribe to exvi., and Hofmann on this passage. 

David the anonymous psalms generally. 


500 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Amide tie déEne Tod Veot, Rom. v. 2. Paul, indeed, expected that he himself 
and most of his readers would live to see the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 51 f., 1. 
8, xi. 26 ; 2 Cor.i. 13 f.) ; but the possibility of meeting death in the dead- 
ly persecutions was always and even now before his mind (1 Cor, xv. 31 f. ; 
2. Cor. i, 8,.v. 18; Phil. 1, 20f., 1.17; Acts xx. 2b, 33): -sengsoueeor anise 
case conceived as possible, which subsequently he for the time being even 
posits as a certainty (see on Acts xx. 25), he expresses here in presence of 
his eventual death his triumphant consciousness ér: 6 éyeipac x.T.A. Hence 
there is no ground for explaining it, with Beza (who, however, again aban- 
doned this view), Calixtus (‘‘ suscitabit a morte sc. illa guotidiana”’), Schulz, 
Rickert, Neander, of the resurrection in @ jigurative sense, viz. of the over- 
coming the constant perils of death (vv. 10-12), which, it is held, is a resur- 
rection with Jesus, in so far as through it there arises a fellowship of destiny 
with the risen Christ. This interpretation is not demanded by the correct 
reading ovy ’Incod, as if this cy (comp. Rom. vi. 4, 8; Eph. ii. 5 f.) presup- 
posed the spiritual meaning. It is true that the raising of the dead takes 
place dca ’Ijoov, and has its basis év r6 Xproré (1 Cor. xv. 21,22) ; but Chris- 
tians may be also conceived and designated as one day becoming raised with 
Jesus, since they are members of Christ, and Christ is the azapy4 (1 Cor. xv. 
23) of all who rise from the dead. The believer, in virtue of his connection 
with the Lord, knows himself already in his temporal life as risen with Christ 
(see on Col. ii. 12, iii. 1), and what he thus knows in faith emerges at the 
last day into objective completion and outward reality. — kai rapaorgoet ody 
tuiv| and will present us together with you. This is taken, according to the 
previously rejected figurative sense of éyepei, to refer to the presentation of 
the conquerors over deadly perils, or even in the sense : ‘‘and will bring us 
together again with you” (Neander, Riickert). But, according to the con- 
text, after the mention of the resurrection, it obviously denotes the presen- 
tation before the judgment-seat of Christ (v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10 ; Col. i. 22 ; 
Eph. v. 27; Luke xxi. 36), where the righteous receive the eternal ddga (2 
Tim. iv. 8). With Christ they have suffered ; with Him they have risen ; 
and now before the throne of the Lord their ovvdotac8Fvac (Rom. viii. 15) 
sets in, which must be the blessed result of their presentation before the 
Judge. Hence Hofmann is wrong in thinking that there is no allusion to 
the judgment-seat of Christ in rapaor. (R*) Comp. on Col. i. 22. In the 
certainty of this last consummation Paul has the deepest ground of encour- 
agement for his undaunted working, and the presentiment of such a glorious 
consummation is made still sweeter to him by the glance at the fellowship of 
love with his Corinthians, together with whom he will reach the blessed goal 
unto eternal union. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19. Hence : civ tuiv, which is an 
essential part of the inward certainty expressed by eidérec x.7.4., Which gives 
him high encouragement. We may add that the tyeic will be partly those 
risen, partly those changed alive (1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 14 ff.). 


Ver. 15. Sdv tuiv, which he has just used, is now made good in such a way ~ 


as to win their hearts. ‘‘ With you, I say, for all of it is for your sake;” 
there is nothing of all that we have to suffer and that we do, which is not 
related to our advantage. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10. éori simply is to be sup- 


CHAP. Iv., 16. 501 
plied ; but ravra sums up what is contained in vv. 7-13 (not merely ver. 
12f). Christ’s death and resurrection, to which Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
Grotius make reference, did not form the subject-matter of the preceding 
context. —iva 7 yapic TAcovdoaca x.t.A.| in order that the grace, t.e. not only 
the divine grace consisting in the reception of the spirit of faith (Hofmann), 
but that which is at work in all our victorious suffering and labouring, zn- 
creased by the increasing number, t.e. after it has grown in extent and influ- 
ence through the increasing number of those who beyond ourselves have 
become partakers in it, may make the thanksgiving, which pertains to it, 
abundant (may produce it in an exceedingly high degree) to the honour of 
God. ‘There is a similar thought in i. 11; but in the present passage the 
thanksgiving is, in accordance with ver. 14, conceived as on the day of judg- 
ment. Note the correlation of ydpcc and ev yapiotiav, as well as the climax : 
TAeovacaca Oia TOV TAeL6vwv and repioceton (1 Thess. iii. 12). 
comp. ix. 8; Eph. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 12.—This is the construction adopted 
by Chrysostom (?), the Vulgate, Ewald, and others, including Riickert and 
Olshausen, who, however, refer dvd tov riecdvov to the intercession of the 
Corinthians, which is not at all suggested by the context. Divergent con- 
structions are (1)‘‘in order that the grace, since it has become so exceeding rich, 
may contribute richly to the glory of God on account of the thanksgiving of the 
increasing number,” Billroth, following Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Krause, Flatt, Osiander, and 
others. So, in the main, Hofmann also : (2) in order that the grace, since it 
has shown itself so richly, may, through the increasing number, make the thanks- 
giving abundant to the honour of God. So Emmerling, de Wette, Neander. 
Both are possible ; but since 6:4 with the accusative would express the con- 
ception, for the sake of, here unsuitable, the former construction would lead 
us to expect did with the genitive instead of did r. 7A. riy ebyap.? (comp. i. 
11, ix. 12) ; and with both we fail to find in riAeovdcaca a more precise defi- 
nition of that by which the grace has become more abundant, a thing not 
directly involved in the connection (as in Rom. vi. 1). Besides, both are less 
in keeping with the symmetry of the discourse, which, in structure and ex- 
pression, is carefully chosen and terse—features seen also in the collocation: 
increased through the increasing number.”’ These rieiovec are those who have 
been converted by the apostolic ministry, and in particular those advanced in 
the Christian life, who were just individualized by dv bac. 

Ver. 16. Ad] namely, on account of the certainty expressed in ver. 14 
(partly elucidated in ver. 15), in significant keeping with eidérec, and hence 
not to be referred back to the faith of the preachers, ver. 18 (Hofmann), 
— ovk éxxax.| aS ver. 1. The opposite of éxxak. is : our inward man, t.e. our 
morally self-conscious personality, with the thinking and willing vote and 


On repiocebe Tt, 


1 The position of the genitive, inverted 
for the sake of emphasis, would have occa- 
sioned no difficulty according to classical 
usage. Thus, ¢.g. Plato, Rep. p. 523 D, and 
Stallbaum in Joc., also, generally, Kiihner, 
Il. p. 624. But Paul would hardly have for- 


\ 


saken the usual order, Sca rHv Trav mrActOver 
evxap., Which would at any rate have like- 
wise made the tay 7A. emphatic. He would 
have had no reason for resorting to that 
assumed hyperbaton. 


502 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the life-principle of the rveiua (see on Rom, vii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 16 ; comp. 1 
Pet. iii. 4), is renewed from day to day, i.e. it receives through the gracious 
efficacy of the divine Spirit continually new vigour and elevation, ri riotez, 
TH éArid., TH TpoOvuia, Chrysostom. But with this there is also the admission : 
even if our outward man, our phenomenal existence, our visible bodily nature, 
whose immediate condition of life is the wuy%, is destroyed, 7.e. is in process 
of being wasted away, of being swept off, namely, through the continual 
sufferings and persecutions, paoriCéuevoc, éAavvduevoc, pupia maoyov ded, 
Chrysostom. For though the continual life-rescues reveal the life of Jesus 
in the body of the apostle (ver. 11), yet there cannot thereby be done away 
the gradually destructive physical influence of suffering on the bodily nature. 
There is here a noble testimony to the consciousness that the continuous de- 
velopment of spiritual life is not dependent on the condition of the body ; 
but the view of Billroth, who finds in dvaxay. the growth of the infinite, the 
true resurrection, is just as un-Pauline as is the opinion of an inward invisible 
body (Menken), or even of a corporeality of the soul (Tertullian). On the 
point whether the inward man includes in itself the germ of the resurrec- 
tion of the body (Osiander), the N. T. says nothing. Riickert diverges 
wholly from the usual interpretation, and thinks that 61d ob« éxxax. is only an 
accessory, half-parenthetical inference from what precedes, and that a new 
train of thought does not begin till a7’: ‘‘I have that hope, and hence do 
not become despondent. But even if I did not possess it, supposing even 
that my outward man is actually dissolved,” etc. Against this it may be 
urged that ob« éxxaxotpuer, a2” x.7.A. could not but present itself obviously to 
every reader as closely connected (we faint not, but), and that the whole in- 
terpretation is a consequence of Riickert’s erroneous exposition of ver. 14. 
Hence Neander also gives a similar interpretation, but hesitatingly. — On 
dcapOeipera, comp. Plato, Ale. i. p. 185 A : dcadOapHvar td cOua.— The add’ 
(at, on the contrary) in the apodosis, after a concessive conditional sentence, 
introduces with emphasis the opposite compensating relation ; see Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. 1. p. 874; Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 48, ed. 2; Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 11. —6 éowber] the inward, inner man. Regarding adverbs in dev 
with the same meaning as their primitives, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 128 ; 
Hartung, Aasus, p. 173.— jpuépa wal juépal day by day; xa? juépav, ro ew 
quépav (Hur. Cycl. 336), in point of sense, for ever and ever, without interrup- 
tion or standing still. A pure Hebraism, not found once in the LXX., 
formed after 01) 07; comp, OY Ov, Esth. iii. 4; Gen, xxxix. 10; Ps. 
Ixvili. 20. See Vorst, Hebr. p. 307 f. — dvaxarvoirac] Winer aptly remarks 
(Progr. de verbor. cum praepos. compos. in N. T. usu, Il. p. 10), that in 
avakavovv, to renew, to refresh, the question does not arise, ‘‘utrum ea ipsa 
novitas, quae alicwi rei conciliatur, jam olim adfuerit necne ;” see on Col. iil. 


10. Instead of avaxaioiv, the Greeks have only avaxarvivery (Heb. iv. 6), but ° 


the simple form is also classical.—The confession ei kai 6 é&w «.t.A. became a 
watchword of the martyrs. Comp. Cornelius a3 Lapide. 

Ver. 17. Ground for the furtherance of this 6 éowfev avaxawodrat Huépa K. Hf. 
from the glorious eternal result of temporal suffering. —7d yap rapavrixa 
_ 7.2.) for the present lightness of our affliction, i.e. our momentary affliction 


CHAP. Iyv., 1%. 503 
weighing light, not heavy to be borne. 7d viv éhagp. rhe VAh). and 7d rapdv 
éhagp. tho BAip. would each give a different meaning ; see Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 783. For examples of the very frequent adjectival use of rapavrixa, 
see Wetstein, Heindorf, ad Plat. Protag. § 106, p. 620 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Rep. p. 558 A ; from Xenophon in Raphel. Bengelaptly remarks : ‘‘notatur 
praesens breve.”” The near Parousia is conceived as terminus ad quem ; comp. 
1 Pet. i. 6. — 76 édadpov Tig OAi).| like 70 dewvdv Tov roAéuov, the horrors of war 
(Plato, Menex. p. 243 B), yarerdv tov Biov (Rep. p. 828 E). Regarding the 
substantival use of the neuter adjective, whereby the idea of the adjective 
is brought into prominence as the chief idea, see Matthiae, p. 994 ; Kiihner, 
Il. p. 122. — kal? irepBordy eic brepBodjy] is definition of manner and degree to 
Katepyagerae 3 it works in an abundant way even to abundance an eternal weight 
(growth) of glory. In this—and how exuberant is the deeply emotional form 
of expression itself !—lies the measureless force and the measureless success 
of the xatepydterw. (s*) If, with Riickert, we sought to find in this an ad- 
verbial definition to aiéviov Bapoc (Rom. vii. 18), it could only refer to aidyor, 
and the notion of aiévioc would make this appear as unsuitable. Riickert is 
further wrong in thinking that the expression does not seem to admit of a 
precise verbal explanation. But on xaf’ izepf. see i. 8 ; Rom. vil. 13 ; 1 Cor. 
xii. 81; Gal. i. 18 ; 4 Macc. iii. 18 ; Bernhardy, p. 241 ; and on éic érepZ. 
comp. passages like x. 15 ; Luke xiii. 11; Eur. Hipp. 939 ; Lucian, D. &. 
27.95 Gymnas. 28 ; Tox. 12 ; on both expressions Valckenaer, ad Hur. Hipp. 
l.c. —aiévov ingeniously corresponds to the previous rapavrixa, and Bapog to 
the éAa¢pév (comp. Plato, Timaeus, p. 63 C). There is contained, however, in 
Bdpog’ the quantitative greatness of the défa 3 comp. Bapo¢ rAobTov, Plut. Alex. 
48; Eur. Jph. 419; Soph. Ajax. 130, and Lobeck thereon. It is similar to the 
German phrase ‘‘ eine schwere Menge.” —xartepydfera: juiv] brings about for us. 
The 66a is conceived as requital for the Aine (Matt. v. 12; Luke xvi. 25 ; 
Rom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13), and in so far as its effect, the production 
of which is developed in the present suffering. It is not merely a spiritual 
and moral dé&a that is meant (Riickert, who irrelevantly appeals to Rom. 
ili. 23), but the whole glory, the aggregate glorious condition in the Messiah’s 
kingdom, Rom. viii. 17, 18 ff. ; Matt. xill. 43. — a) cxorobyr. ju. K.7.A.] since 
we do not direct our aim to that which is seen, i.e. since we have not in view, 
as the goal of our striving (Phil. ii. 4), the visible goods, enjoyments, etc., 
which belong to the pre-Messianic period (ra éxiyeva, Phil. iii. 19) ; comp. 
Rom. viii. 25. Billroth wrongly understands the resurrection-bodies to be 
meant, which must have been derived from what precedes, and may not be 
inferred from vy. 1. The participle is taken as conditioning by Calvin, Riick- 
ert, Ewald, Hofmann : 7 being presupposed that we, etc. ; comp. Chrysostom: 
ay TOV 6popévuv araydyouev éavtoic. The uA would accord with this interpre- 
tation, but does not require it ; see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 3801 f. [E. T. 
301]. The former sense, specifying the reason, is not only more appropriate 


1 Bapos is not distinguished from oyxos by éyxos that of bud/k. The idea of burdensome- 
the latter having always the idea of burden nessis in both words given solely by the 
(Tittmann, Synon. p. 158). The notion of context. Comp. on oy«os, used of abundant 
weight is always contained in Bdpos,andin (fulness; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 126. 


504 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in general to the ideal apostolic way of regarding the Christian life (Rom. 
v. 38-5, vill. 1, 9, 25 ; 2 Cor. iv. 18), but it is also recommended by the fact 
that Paul himself is meant first of all in yuév. On the more strongly em- 
phatic genitive absolute (instead of w7 oxorovor Ta Bier.), even after the 
governing clause, comp. Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 18, i. 4. 12, and Kiihner 
thereon ; see also Kriiger, § xlvil. 4. 2; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 183 
B; Winer, p. 195 [E. T. 260]. With the Greeks, however, the repetition 
of the subject (juov) israre ; comp. Thue. ili. 22. 1. —ra py BrAerdueva] Paul 
did not write ra ov BAewéueva, because the goods and enjoyments of the Mes- 
sianic kingdom are to appear from the subjective standpoint of the juecic as 
something not seen.’ See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 807; Kiihner, II. § 715. 
3. Comp. Heb. x1. 7. — ra yap BAnréueva x.t.A.| Reason, why we do not aim, 
etc. — pdcxaipa] temporary (Matt. xiii. 21; Mark iv. 17; Heb. xi. 25), 
namely, lasting only to the near Parousia, 1 Cor. vii. 81; 1 John ii. 17. — 
On the whole expression, comp. Seneca, Hp. 59, 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITor. 


(x4) ‘It is hid to them that are lost.”? Ver. 3. 


Nothing can be plainer than the doctrine of this passage. A man’s faith is 
not a matter of indifference. He cannot reject the Gospel and yet go to heaven 
when hedies. This is not anarbitrary decision. There isand must be an ade- 
quate ground for it. The rejection of the Gospel is as clear a proof of moral 
depravity, as inability to see the light of the sun at noon isa proof of blind- 
ness. Such is the teaching of the Bible, and such has ever been the faith of 
the church (Hodge), 


(m*) ‘* Blinded the minds of them that believe not.” Ver. 4. 


The view of Meyer that unbelief precedes the blindness, that those who will 
not believe Satan blinds so that they cannot see, is scripturai, but is not 
taught here. Stanley gives the force of the genitive thus : Tov driorwy = dote 
ariotouc elvat. Paul had said that the Gospel was hid to the lost. This he ac- 
counts for by saying that Satan had blinded their minds. The blindness there- 
fore precedes the unbelief, and is the cause of it.—It does not seem necessary 
to limit the statement that Christ is the image of God to his. state of exaltation, 
as the author does. Even in his humiliation he so represented God as that it 
could be said he that saw him saw the Father also John xiv. 9, xii. 46). 


(nt) ‘* The God of this world.” Ver. 4. 


Satan is so called because of the power which he exercises over the men of 
the world, and because of the servile obedience which they render to him. It 
is not necessary, in order that men should serve Satan, and even worship him, 
that they should intend to do so, or even that they should know that such a 
being exists (1 Cor. x. 20), It is enough that he actually controls them, and 


1 Bengel aptly observes: ‘ Aliud significat dépara; nam multa, quae non cernuntur, 
erunt visibilia, confecto itinere fidei?”’ 


HetNOLTES: 505 


that they fulfil his purposes as implicitly as the good fulfil the will of God. 
Not to serve God is to serve Satan. There is no help for it, IfJehovah be not 
our God, Satan is (Hodge.) 


(0%) ** To give the light of the knowledge.’’ Ver. 6. 


According to the author, the intention here is to give a reason for Paul’s be- 
ing a servant to the Corinthians, viz. that God shined into his heart that he 
might give the light to others. But it agrees better with the context and the 
meaning of the words to view the brilliant passage as giving the reason why 
Paul preached the Gospel. The outshining of God in creative power so illu- 
mined the Apostle’s soul that he saw the divine glory in the face of Christ, and 
could not but set forth such majesty, excellence, and grace. 


(p*) ‘* Troubled on every side,’’ etc. Vv. 8, 9. 


There is in these verses an evident climax, which reaches its culmination in 
the following sentence. Paul compares himself to a combatant: first hardly 
pressed, then hemmed in, then pursued, then actually cast down. This was 
not an occasional experience, but his life was like that of Christ, an uninter- 
rupted succession of indignities and suffering (Hodge). 


(Q') Paul's quotation from the Psalter. Ver. 13. 


In a footnote the author speaks of Paul as looking upon David as the author 
of the 116th Psalm. But, besides the fact that the Apostle does not say so, it 
may be insisted that even if he had spoken of it as David’s, it would not prove 
anything more than that he referred to it (just as believers have done for ages) 
as belonging to a collection which is called David’s, because he was the chief 
author of its contents. As for the quotation itself, Paul quotes the incorrect 
rendering of the Septuagint ; yet, as the author justly remarks, both the Hebrew 
and the Greek contain the idea which led the Apostle to make the quotation, 
viz, that speaking is represented as the effect and proof of faith. 


(n*) ‘* Shall present us with you.” Ver. 14. 


Certainly the idea of the judgment is foreign to the connection. ‘‘Itisa 
fearful thing to stand before the tribunal of the final judge, even with the cer- 
tainty of acquittal.’ The reference in rather tothe joyful, blessed presenta- 
tion before God, referred to so often elsewhere by the Apostle. See xi. 2; Eph. 
v. 27; Col. i. 22; Jude 24. 


(s*) ‘* A far more exceeding and elernal.” Ver. 17. 


The Revision of 1881 gives this weighty and impressive verse in a rendering 
which is exact, and yet faithful to our English idiom. The verse contains the 
whole philosophy of the Christian view of affliction. It does not deny the re- 
ality of earthly sorrows or underrate their power, as did the Stoics; but after 
allowing them all their force, calmly says that they dwindle into insignificance 
when compared with the exceeding and eternal elory to which they lead. But 
this applies only to believers, as appears by the next verse, ‘‘ while we look,’’ 
etc. Afflictions have a salutary operation, provided that we look at the things 
which are eternal—look;, i.e., fix our attention upon them as an absorbing object. 


506 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER 


Ver. 3. efye] Lachm. reads eizep, following BD EF G17, 80, and rivéc in 
Chrys. One of the two is hardly a grammatical correction, but simply an 
involuntary alteration of the copyists. Hence the preponderance of testimony 
is decisive, and that in favour of eiye, which has the support of C K L 8 among 
the uncials, and of almost all the cursives, as well as the strong weight of all 
the Greek Fathers. (The testimony of the vss. and Latin Fathers is not avail- 
able here.) — évdvoduevor] exdvoduevor is found in D* F G, Ar. pol. It. codd. in 
Chrys. and Oec. Ambrosiast. Tert. Paulin. Primas. Ambros. Marcion. Pre- 
ferred by Mill,! Seml. Michael. Ernesti, Schott, Schneckenb. Reiche, Osiander, 
and others. Recommended by Griesb. ; not adopted, but declared decidedly 
as correct, by Riick., comp. also Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511; 
adopted by Tisch. But éxdvo. is an old alteration, arising from the fact that 
évdvo., ob yuuvot Were not regarded as contrasts, and hence the former was found 
inappropriate and unintelligible. Lachm. and Ewald also defend the Recepta 
évdvo, — Ver. 4. After oxves Riick. reads rovtw, following DEF G min. and 
several vss. and Fathers. <A defining addition. — Ver. 5. 6 dove] 6 Kai dovc is 
read by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. against BC D* F G &* min. and several vss. and 
Fathers. But comp, i. 22.— Ver. 10. xaxév] gavdAov, favoured by Griesb., 
adopted by Tisch., is here (it is otherwise in Rom. ix. 11) too weakly attested 
(only by C and & among the uncials). — Ver. 12. od] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have 
ot yap, but against preponderating evidence. Addition for the sake of connec- 
tion, — kai ov] Lachm. reads «ai yw) év. But uy is only in B 8 and some cur- 
sives, Theodoret ; while év is found in B D* FG & and some cursives, Copt. 
Syr. Vulg. It. Clem. Ambrosiast. Pel., so that w7 and év have not equal attesta- 
tion. 7 is an emendation, and év supplementary. — Ver, 15. ei eic] Lachm. 
Riick. read eic, following far preponderating testimony. i was inserted for the 
sake of a connection assumed to be wanting. — Ver. 16. ei dé cai] B D* 8* 17, 
39 have only e «at. So Lachm, Riick. 0é is only added by way of connection, 
just as the change of order «ai ei in F G, Vulg., It. and Latin Fathers has been 
made for the sake of the connection, but likewise testifies to the non-.genuine- 
ness of dé. — Ver. 17. ra wdvra] is wanting in important authorities. Deleted 
by Lachm. and Riick. [So nearly all recent critics and expositors.] But how 
easily it may have been passed over on account of the following ra dé révra! 
Some versions omit the latter. — Ver. 21. yap] is, according to preponderating 
testimony, to be deleted, with Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Instead of yevoou., 
yevou., Should be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following BCDEKL ¥, 
min. Or. Chrys. al. These witnesses are decisive ; Fand Galso suggest the aor. 


1 According to whom the attempts to ex- Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 362, quite agrees with 
plain évévodpu. are alleged to be ‘“‘pleraque him in this judgment. 
absurda, omnia dura, coacta et incongrua.” 


CRA Pe 1 507 


Vy. 1-10. Still‘a continuation of what precedes (see on iv. 7). 

Ver. 1. Tp] gives a reason foriv. 17. For if we were not certain that, 
etc., ver. 1, we could not maintain that our temporal tribulation works for 
us an eternal weight of glory. — oidauev] is here not the general 7¢ 7s known 
(Rom. ii. 2, iii. 19, vii. 14, viii. 28), but Paul is speaking (with the inclusion 
also of Timothy) of himself, as in the whole context, He is certain of this. 
Comp. Job xix. 25. — éav 9% ériyesog yudv «.7.2.] in case our earthly house of the 
tent (our present body) shall have been broken up (comp. Polyb. vi. 40; 2 
Esdr. v. 12). Paul here supposes the case, the actual occurrence of which, 
however, is left quite indefinite by éay, of his not living to see the Parousia. 
It is true that he was convinced for himself that he would live to see it (1 
Cor. xv. 51), (1*) but the opposite still remained to him a possible case, and 
he posits it here (comp. on iy. 14) as dependent on emergent circumstances 
and with an eye to the future decision. This correct view of the use of édv 
(see Hermann, ad Viger. pp. 822, 884 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 453) is suffi- 
cient to set aside the supposition that it is here equivalent to av, etiamst 
(Grotius, Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, also Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 
125), which is not the case even in passages such as Mark viii. 36 ; 1 Cor. 
iv. 15, xiii. 1-8 ; 2 Cor. xil. 6. — ériyeioc] earthly, i.e. to be found on earth. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40; Phil. ii. 10, 1.19; Jas. ili, 15; Johniii. 12. But 
the special notion of transitoriness only comes to be added through the char- 
acteristic tov oxfvove, and is not specially implied in éxiyewog (in opposition to 
Flatt and many others), for the present body 1s as éziyevoc, in contrast to the 
heavenly things, in a general sense temporal. — 7 oixia tov oxyvovce] is to be 
taken as one conception : the house, which consists in the (known) tent, the tent- 
house. It is wrongly translated domum corporis by Mosheim and Kypke 
(Riickert also hesitates as to this). For frequently as the profane authors, 
especially the Pythagoreans and Platonists, designate the body by oxjvo¢ 
(Grotius im loc. ; Alberti, Obss. p. 860; Dougtaeus, Anal. IL. p. 122 f. ; 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 30), and seem withal to have quite abandoned the 


_ conception of the tent (see the passages in Wetstein, and Kypke, IT. p. 250), 


still that conception always lies at the root of the usage, and remains the 
significant element of the expression. Comp. Etym. M. 3 oxfvoc kai 7d cpa 
Tapa TO oKAVvoua Kal oKnvav elvat THe wWoyic, olov oixytApiov. And since Paul 
nowhere else uses oxjvoc of the body, and was led in quite a special way by 
figure of oixia todo so here, we must keep by the literal meaning of cxjvoc, 
tent, by which is set forth the merely temporary destiny of the earthly body. 
Comp. 2 Pet. i. 13, 14 ; Isa. xxxviil. 12 ; Wisd. ix. 15, and Grimm in loc. 
Chrysostom : eizOv o:xiay oxhvove Kai 70 ebdidAvtov Kal mpdckarpov deiEag éxTevdev, 
avrédyke THY aiwviay. ‘There is nothing to indicate a particular allusion, such 
as to the dwellings of the Israelites in the wilderness (Schneckenburger, 
comp. Riickert), or even to the tabernacle (Olshausen).—On the two geni- 
tives of different reference dependent on one noun, see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 
239]; and in Latin, Kiihner, ad Cic. Tuse. ii. 15. 35. — oixodopuqy éx Yeod a 
building originating from God, furnished to us by God, by which is meant 
the resurrection-body. The earthly body also is from God (1 Cor. xii. 18, 
24), but the resurrection-body will be in a special creative sense (1 Cor. xv. 


- 


508 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

38) one, not indeed that has proceeded from God,’ but that is given by God. 
Note also the contrast of the transient (7 oixia tov oxpv.) and the abiding 
(oixodou7) in the two bodies. é« eod is to be attached to oixod., not to be 
connected with éyouev, by which a heterogeneous contrast would be intro- 
duced (according to Hofmann, with the earthly body, ‘‘ which is made 
each individual’s own within the self-propagation of the human race”). The 
present tense, éyouev, is the present of the point of time in which that xara- 
Avdq shall have taken place. Then he who has died has, from the moment 
of the state of death having set in, instead of the destroyed body, the body 
proceeding from God, not yet indeed as a veal possession, but as an ideal 
possession, undoubtedly to be realized at the (near) Parousia. Before this 
realization he has it in heaven (év roic ovpavoic belongs to éyouev), just because 
the possession is still ideal and proleptic ; at the Parousia the resurrection- 
‘body will be given to him from heaven (comp. ver. 2) by God, and till then 
it appears as a possession which 7s preserved for him fora time in heaven with 
a view to being imparted in future—like an estate belonging to him (comp. 
the idea éyew Gyoavpov év oipavd, Matt. xix. 21; Mark x. 21; Luke xviii. 
22) which God, the future giver, keeps for him in heaven. For a like con- 
ception of the eternal ¢w# in general, see Col. iii. 3 f. ; comp. Weiss, bi0/. 
Theol. p. 8375. The whole of this interpretation is confirmed by 76 olxyrfp. 
Huts TO EE ovpavod, ver. 2, Which is correlative to the éyouev . . 
ver. 1, in which, however, év does not again occur, but é«x, because in ver. 2 
TO oiKnTHpLOV . . . émevdboacba expresses the time of the realization of that 
possession described in ver. 1. As accordingly éyowev expresses more than 
the mere expectancy (‘‘in the event of our death we do not wholly perish, 
but have at the resurrection a spiritual body ¢o eapect,” Billroth), it is not to 
be transformed into accipiemus (Pelagius : ‘‘sumemus”’), with Emmerling, 
Flatt, and many of the older expositors, nor is it to be said, with de Wette 
(comp. Weizel in'the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 967; also Baur, II. p. 292 f., 
ed. 2; and Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 485 f.), that Paul has overleaped the middle 
state between death and resurrection, or has let it fall into the background 
on account of its shortness (Osiander). The éyew takes place already from 
the moment of death and during the continuance of the intervening state, 
not simply from the resurrection. Photius, Anselm, Thomas, Lyra, and 
others,” including Calovius, Wolf, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, compare 
Jobn xiv. 2, and on account of the present tense refer this oixodoug to the glo- 
rious place of abode of the blessed spirits with God after death on to the 
resurrection. §o also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 359 (comp. Schneckenburger, /.c.), 
explains it of a life in heaven immediately after death. But against such a 
view it may be decisively urged that oixia in the two parts of the verse must 


. év Toic ovpavoic, 


1 Klopper in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. 
1862, p. 8 f. 

2 Calvin hesitates between the right ex- 
planation and this one; he says: ‘‘ Jncertum 
est, an significet statum beatae immortalitatis, 
qui post mortem fideles manet, an vero corpus 
éncorruptibile et gloriosum, quale post resur- 
rectionem erit.’? Then he wishes to unite the 


two views: ‘‘ Malo ita accipere, ut initinm 
hujus aedificit sit beatus animi status post mor- 
tem, consummatio autem sit gloria ultimae 
resurrectionis.’?  Billroth misunderstands 
this, as if Calvin were thinking of two dif- 
ferent sorts of bodies, one of which we 
have till the resurrection, the other by 
means. of the resurrection. 
\ 


CHAP. V., 2. 509 


necessarily have the same reference (namely, to the body) ; hence also we 
cannot, with Ewald and Hofmann, think of the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv. 
25 f., Heb. xii. 22, and of the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20. See, 
on the other hand, 10 éF oipavod, ver. 2, on which Bengel rightly remarks : 
_‘‘itaque hoc domicilium non est coelum ipsum.” ? (‘u) But because the oix/a 
is 2F ovpavod, we can aslittle think of a pneumatic bodily organ of the inter- 
mediate state (Flatt, Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 709, Neander), 
of which the N. T. gives no teaching or even hint whatever. Riickert 
explains it, yet with much vacillation, of the immediate sequence of the exit 
out of the old and entrance on the new body ; but this is against 1 Cor. xv. — 
51-53, according to which the transfiguration of those who live to see the 
Parousia appears not asinvestiture with a new body after a previous Kcara2vorg 
of the old, but asa sudden transformation without destruction. This also in 
opposition to Olshausen, who likewise seems to understand it of the trans- 
figuration of the living. — dyeporoinrov| This epithet, denoting the super- 
natural origin, suits indeed only the figure (Mark xiv. 58 ; Acts vii. 48), and 
not the thing in itself ;? yet it occurred to the apostle the more naturally, 
and he could use it with the less scruple and without impropriety, seeing 
that he had just before represented the earthly body under the figure of a 
oxyvoc, consequently of an oikia yerporoinroc, So that now, by virtue of con- 
trast, the heavenly body stood before his eyes as an oixia ayetporoinroc. Con- 
versely, an adjective may, without incongruity, correspond to the thing 
itself and not to the figure, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — éy roi¢ oipavoic] belongs 
to éyouev 3 see above.— Lastly, it is to be observed that in the two halves 
of the verse (1) é« Yeot and éy roi¢ ovpay. correspond with éxiyevoc, and (2) 
ayetpor. and aidviov with tov oxfvove. 

Ver. 2. Confirmation of the certainty expressed in ver. 1, not an explana- 
tion why he should precisely mention the fact that he has such comfort in 
the prospect of death (Hofmann)—as if, instead of oidayev, Aéyouev or some 
similar verbum declarandi had preceded. — xai yép] does not here any more 
than elsewhere mean merely for (see, on the other hand, Hartung, Partikell. 
I. p. 188), but it means for also, so that «ai is connected with év ror. Pre- 
viously, namely, the case was supposed : édy . . . xatadvd@ ; to which this 
kal yap év tovrw now corresponds, so that the train of thought is’: ‘‘ we know 
that, in case our present body shall have one day been destroyed, we have a 
body in heaven ; forif this were not so, we should not already in the present 
body be sighing after the being clothed upon with the heavenly.”* This 
longing is an inward assurance of the fact that, if our earthly house, etc. — 
kat yap év tovty| The emphasis is on éy : for also in this. Not merely perhaps 
after the xardAvorg supposed as possible (ver. 1) shall we long for the heavenly 





1 On the way of regarding heaven as dom- € Tf that otkoSouny éx Seov Exouev were not 
icilium, comp. Cic. de Senect. 23. 84; Tusc. correct, it would be absurd, instead of 
i, 11, 24: “animos, quum e corporibus ex- being contented with the earthly habita- 
cesserint, in coelum quasi sn Gdomicilium tion, to be longing already én it after being 
suum, pervenire ;” also i. 22, 51. clothed upon with the heavenly habitation, 

2 “*Metaphoricus sensus in talibus specte- Quite similar is the argument in Rom. viii. 


tur, non primarius,’’ Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. 22. 
iv. 158. ; 


510 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


body, but already now, while we are not yet out of the earthly body but are 
still in it, we are sighing to be clothed upon with the heavenly. This is 
proved to be the right interpretation by the parallel in ver. 4, where our év is 
represented by oj évrec év. On xai, also, in the sense of already or already also, 
see Hartung, Uc. p. 185 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B ; Fritzsche, ad 
Lucian. p. 5 ff. With roirm, according to the supposition of Grotius and 
others, including Fritzsche and Schrader, céuare is to be mentally supplied, 
so that, as is often the case in the classic writers, the pronoun is referred to 
a word which was contained only as regards the sense in what preceded. 
See Fritzsche, Diss, I. p. 47 ; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 714 ; Seidler, ad Hur. 
Hl. 582. Riickert wrongly thinks that Paul in that case must have written 
év avt@. This prevalent phenomenon of Janguage applies, in fact, equally 
in the case of all demonstrative and relative pronouns ; see the passages in 
Matthiaec, p, 978 f. Seeing, however, that the following 70 oikyrhprov ju. Td 
2£ ovpavov proves that Paul also, in év rotr~, was regarding the body under 
the figure of a dwelling, and seeing that he himself in ver. 4 has expressly 
written 76 oxAver instead of roir the supplying of 76 cxfver is to be preferred 
(so Beza and others, including Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Ewald’). 
Others take év rottw as propterea (see on John xvi. 20; Acts xxiv. 16), and 
refer it partly to what was said in ver. 1, as Hofmann : ‘‘ On account of the 
death in prospect” (comp. Estius, Flatt, Lechler, p. 138), or Delitzsch, p. 
436: ‘‘in such position of the case ’;” partly to what follows, which would 
be the epexegesis of it (Hrasmus, Usteri, Billroth, the latter with hesitation). 
So also Riickert : in this respect. But the parallel of ver. 4 is decidedly 
against all these views, even apart from the fact that that over which we 
sigh is in Greek given by ézi with the dative or by the accusative, and hence 
Hofmann’s view in particular would have required éxi rott@ or tovTo. — rd 
olxythpiov . . . émiroovvrec contains the reason of the sighing: because we 
long for, etc. Paul himself gives further particulars in ver. 4. Hofmann 
wrongly thinks that Paul explains his sighing from the fact, that his longing 
applies to that clothing upon, instead of which death sets in. 'The latter point 
is purely imported in consequence of his erroneous explanation of év rotryw. 
It is the sighing of the longing to experience the last change by means of 
the being clothed upon with the future body. This longing to be clothed upon 
with the heavenly body (not, as Bengel and many of the older expositors 
would have it : with the glory of the transfigured soul, to which view Hof- 
mann also comes in the end, since he thinks of the eternal light in which God 
dwells and Christ with Him lives) eztorts the sighs. Against the reference of 
éxevdto. to an organ of the intermediate state, see on ver. 8, Remark. Ac- 
cording to Fritzsche, the participle is only a continuation of the discourse 
by attaching another thought : ‘‘ in hoe corpore male nos habentes suspiramus 
et cocleste superinduere gestimus.” But in that case no logical reference would 
be furnished for kai ; besides, it seems unwarrantable to supply male nos 
habentes, since Paul himself has added quite anothex participle ; and in gen- 
eral, wherever the participle seems only to continue the discourse, there 


1 See also Klopper in the Jahro. fiir deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 18. 


CHAPS Vi, 0: 511 


exists such a relation of the participle to the verb, as forms logically a basis for 
the participal connection. Comp. Eph. v. 16. According to Schnecken- 
burger, orevdfouev éxixodovvres stands for ériroVovuer orevdfovtec, so that 
the chief fact is expressed by the participle (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, pp. 
234, 280, ed. 3; Seidler, ad Hur. Iph. T. 1411 ; Matthiae, p. 1295 f.). An 
arbitrary suggestion, against the usage of the N.T., which is different even 
in the passages quoted by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 275 [E. T. 320], and to be re- 
jected also on account of ver. 4, orevdfouev Bapotu. — The distinction between 
oixta and oixyrhpiov is rightly noted by Bengel : ‘‘oixia est quiddam magis 
absolutum, oixyrApiov respicit incolam,” house—habitation (Jude 6 ; Eur. Or. 
1114 ; Plut. Mor. p. 602 D ; 2 Macc. xi. 2, 3, il. 15). —- 76 é obpavoi] that 
which proceeds from heaven; for it is é« %eov, ver. 1. God furnishes from 
heaven the resurrection-body (1 Cor. xv. 38) through Christ (Phil. iii. 21), 
in the case of the dead, by means of raising, in the case of the living, by 
means of transforming (1 Cor. xv. 51). The latter is what is thought of in 
the present passage. —érevdicacda:]| With this Paul passes to another but 
kindred figure, namely, that of a robe, as also among the Rabbins (Schoett- 
gen, Hor. p. 693) and the Neo-Platonists (Gataker, ad Anton. p. 351; Bos, 
Frercit. p. 60 ; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 127) the body is frequently rep- 
resented as the robe of the soul. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 239. 
But he does not simply say évdicacd.a, but érevdicactat, to put on over (which 
is not to be taken with Schneckenburger of the swccession ; see, on the con- 
trary, Plut. Pelop. 11: éodS#rac érevdedvpévor yvvatxeiac Toic Sopas:, Herod. i. 
195 : éxt rovrov GAAov eipiveov KeSGva éexevdiver), because the longing under dis- 
cussion is directed to the living to see the Parousia and the becoming trans- 
formed alive. This transformation in the living body, however, is in so far 
an érevdicacda:, as this denotes the acquisition of a new body with negation 
of the previous death (the éxdicaoSa). This is not at variance with 1 Cor. 
xy. 53, where the simple évdicacSa is used of the same transformation ; for 
in that passage 7d ¢@aptdv rovro is the subject which puts on, and, conse- 
quently, 7d ¢0aprév rovTo évdb_erat is quite equivalent to érevdvdue9a, because in 
the latter case, as at the present passage, the self-conscious Ego’ is the sub- 
ject. — Regarding ériroSeiv, in which éri does not make the meaning 
stronger (ardenter cupere), as it is usually taken, but only indicates the 
direction of the longing (rédov éyewv évi tt), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 30 f. 
Ver. 3. After ver. 2 a comma only is to be placed, for ver. 8 contains a 
supplementary definition to what precedes (comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. pp. 
391, 395 f.), inasmuch as the presupposition is stated under which the éev- 
dtoacdat éxiroSovuev takes place : in the presupposition, namely, that we shall 
be found also clothed, not naked, i.e. that we shall be met with at the Parousia 
really clothed with a body, and not bodiless. 'The apostle’s view is that, while 
Christ at the Parousia descends from heaven, the Christians already dead 
first rise, then those still alive are transformed, whereupon both are then 
caught away into the higher region of the air (cic aépa) to meet the Lord, so 


1The inward man. He is put on with the earthly body, and sighs full of longing to put 
on over it the heavenly body. 


512 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

that they thus at their meeting with the Lord shall be found not bodiless (ov 
youvol), but clothed with a corporeal covering * (évdvoduevor). (v*) See 1 Thess. 
iv. 16, 17, and Liinemann’s note thereon. This belief is here laid down as 
certainty by eiye «.7.2., and as such it conditions and justifies the longing 
desire expressed in ver. 2, which, on the contrary, would be vain and empty 
dreaming, if that belief were erroneous, i.e. if we at the Parousia should be 
found as mere spirits without corporeality ; so that thus those still living, in- 
stead of being transformed, would have to die, in order to appear as spirits 
before the descending Christ. We cannot fail to see in the words an inci- 
dental reference to those of the Corinthians who denied the resurrection, 
and without the thought of them Paul would have had no occasion for add- 
ing ver. 3; but the reference is such, as takes for granted that the deniers 
are set aside and the denied fact is certain. As the whole of this explana- 
tion is quite in keeping with the context and the conceptions of the apostle, 
so is it with the words, regarding which, however, it is to be observed that 
the certainty of what is posited by eiye, if namely, is not implied in this par- 
ticle by itself (in opposition to Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834), but in 
the connection of the conception and discourse. Comp. on Eph. ii. 2, Gal. 
iii. 4, and Baeumlein, Partik. p.64f. On «ai, also, in the sense of really, 
see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 182 ; and on ei ye cai, comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 13. 
The participle évdvoduevor refers, however, to the act of clothing previous to 
the eipedyjodueda, so that the aorist is quite in its right place (in opposition 
to Hofmann’s objection, that the perfect is required) ; and finally, the asyn- 
deton ivdvcdu., ov yuuvot makes the contrasts come into more vivid promi- 
nence, like yéAa, ob Bpdua,1 Cor. 11. 2; Rom. ii. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 17, and 
often ; comp. ver. 7. See Kiihner, II. p. 461 ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 31; 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. — The most current exposition on the part of 
others is : ‘‘ $i nos iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non exutos a corpore, 
si erimus inter mutandos, non inter mortuos,” Grotius. So, following Tertul- 
lian (de Resurr, 41, though he reads éxdvc.), Cajetanus, Castalio, Estius, 
Wolf, Bengel, Mosheim, Emmerling, Schrader, Rinck, and others, and, in 
the main, Billroth also, who, however, decides#in favour of the reading 
eixep, and deletes the comma after évdvedu. : ‘‘ which (7.e. the being clothed 
upon) takes place, 7f we shall be found (on the day of the Lord) otherwise 
than already once clothed (with the earthly body), not naked (like the souls 
of the dead),” so that évdvodu. ob yuuvot etp. together would be : utpote jam 
semel induti non nudi inveniemur. Against that common explanation, which 
J. Miiller, von der Siinde, I. p. 422 f., ed. 5, also follows with the reading 
eitep, the aorist participle is decisive (it must have been évdedvuévor).? Bill- 
roth, however, quite arbitrarily imports the already once, and, what could 
be more unnecessary, nay, vapid, than to give a reason for ov yuyvoi by 
means of évdvcau. in the assumed sense : since we indeed have already once re- 


1 That is, with the new body, no longer 
with the old. See, in opposition to 
Klopper, Hofmann, p. 130. 

2 Even Miiller acknowledges that the 
aorist is anomalous, but makes an irrrele- 


vant appeal to Eph. vi. 14; 1 Thess. vy. 8. In 
both passages, in fact, the having put on is 
longed for, and the aorist is therefore quite 
in order. 


A 
q 





CHAP. V., 3. ; 513 


ceived a body! which would mean nothing else than : since we indeed are not 
born bodiless. Against Billroth, beside3, sée Reiche, p. 357 f. According 
to Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 55 ff., évdvcdu. is held to be in essential meaning 
equivalent to érevdvodu. : ‘‘ Superinduere (immortale corpus vivi ad nos re- 
cipere) volumus, quandoquidem (quod certo scimus ct satis constat, elye) etiam 
superinduti (immortali corpore) non nudi sc. hoc immortali corpore, sumus 
futuri h.e. quandoquidem vel sic ad regni Mess. adPapciay perveniemus.” But 
while the érevdvodwevo: may be included as a species among the évdvoduevor, 
as opposed to the yuuvoi, they cannot be meant exclusively. Besides, the 
thought : ‘‘ since we too clothed upon will not be without the immortal body,” 
would be without logical import, because the superinduere is just the assump- 
tion of the future body, with which we attain to the aé@apcia of the Messi- 
anic kingdom. According to de Wette, Paul says: ‘‘i/, namely, also (in 
reality) clothed, we shall be found not naked (bodiless), t.e. as we then certainly 
presuppose that that heavenly habitation will be also a body.” So, in the main, 
Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 1388 f., Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. 
p- 118, the latter taking eiye cai as although indeed. But the whole explana- 
tion is absurd, since the évdvore could not at all be conceived as at the same 
time its opposite, as yuuvéry¢ ; and had Paul wished to lay emphasis on the 
fact that the clothing would be none other than with a body (which, how- 
ever, was quite obvious of itself), he must have used not the simple yuyvoi 
(not the simple opposite of évducdu.), but along with it the more precise defi- 
nition with which he was concerned, something, therefore, like ob céuarog 
yuuvot (Plato, Orat. p. 403 B, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner). 
According to Delitzsch, l.c. p. 436, ei cai is taken as although, and évdvodu. 
as contrast of éxevdvodu., so that there results as the meaning : though, in- 


deed, we too, having acquired the heavenly body by means of clothing (not 


clothing over), shall be found not naked. As if this were not quite obvious 
of itself ! When clothed, one certainly is not naked ! no matter whether 
we have drawn the robe on or over. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
and Oecumenius take évdvcdu. as equivalent to cima adOaptov AaBdvtec, but 
yvuvot as equivalent to yuuvoi dé£yc, for the resurrection is common to all, but 
not the défa. So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 392 f.: ‘‘ We long after being 
clothed upon, which event, however, is desirable for us only under the con- 
dition or presupposition that we, though clothed, shall not be found naked 
in another sense,” namely, denuded.of the garland which we should have 
gained. Here also we may place Olshausen (comp. Pelagius, Anselm, Cal- 
vin, Calovius, and others), who takes od yuuvoi as epexegetical of évdvodp., 
and interprets the two thus : if we, namely, are found also clothed with the robe 
of righteousness, not denuded of it. Comp. also Osiander, who thinks of the 
spiritual ornament of justification and sanctification ; further, Hofmann on 
the passage and in his Schriftbew. Il. 2, p. 478, who, putting a comma after 
elye (‘if we, namely, in consequence of the fact that we also have put on, shall be 
Sound not naked”), understands évdvodyevor as a designation of the Christian 
status (the having put on Christ), which one must have in order not to stand 
forth naked and, therefore, unfitted for being clothed over. But where in 
the text is there any suggestion of a garland, a robe, an ornament of right- 


514 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

eousness, a putting on of Christ (Gal. iii. 27; Romfn. xiii. 14), or of the 
Christian status-(1 Thess. v. 8 ; Eph. vi. 14, iv. 24; Col. iii. 10), or any- 
thing else, which does not mean simply the clothing with the future body ? 
Olshausen, indeed, is of opinion that there lies in «ai a hint of a transition 
to another figure ; but without reason, as is at once shown by what follows ; 
and with equal justice amy change in the figure at our pleasure might be ad- 
mitted ! This also in opposition to Ewald’s interpretation : ‘‘if we at least 
being also clothed (after we have had ourselves clothed, ¢.e. raised again) 
be found not naked, namely, guilty, like Adam and Eve, Gen. iii. 11.” 
This would point to the resurrection of the wicked, Rev. xx. 12-15 ; if we 
belonged to these, we should certainly not have the putting on of glorifica- 
tion to hope for. But such a reference was just as remote from the mind of 
the apostle, who is speaking of himself and those like him, as the idea of 
Adam and Eve, of whom, Beza also thinks in yuyvo, must, in the absence of 
more precise indication, have remained utterly remote from the mind of the 
reader. 


Remarx.—Whether the reading éxdvo. or évduvo. be adopted, it is not to be 
explained of an interim body between death and resurrection (Flatt, p. 69 ; 
Schneckenburger, l.c. p, 130; Schott ; Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 
709; Martensen, § 276; Nitzsch, Gédschel, Rinck, and others, including 
Reiche,! /.c.), of which conception there is no trace in the New Testament ;? 
but rather, since yvyvoi can only refer to the lack of a body : if we, namely, even 


1Reiche, p. 364: ‘‘ Quo certior nobis est 
gloriosae immortalitatis spes (yap, c. 2), €0 im- 
pensiore quidem desiderio, ut morte non inter- 
cedente propediem ad summum beatitudinis 
Sastigium evehamur, jlagramus; attamen 
vero etiam corpore hoc per mortem exuti senti- 
endi agendique instrumento non carebimus.”’ 
etye kat is, in his view, concessive, moderating 
the desire to assume the heavenly body 
without previously dying (émevévcacdar, ver. 
2): “*Siigitur Deus votis (ver. 2) non an- 
nuerit, animum haud despondemus anxlive 
futura anhelamus, persuasi scilicet, et post 
mortem illico mentem nostram immortalem 
in statum beatissimum evectum iri,” etc. 
It is true that Reiche himself declares 
against the view that Paul here speaks of a 
body intermediate between death and resur- 
rection ; but hisown view amounts to much 
the same thing, since Paul, according to it, 
is supposed to grant that we, unclothed of 
the earthly body by death, will yet ‘‘ post 
mortem illico’’ be found not naked. 

2 The manner also in which the origin of 
this corporeality has been conceived, name- 
ly, as the soul’s self-embodiment by putting 
on the elements of the higher world (see, 
especially Giider, Hrsch. Chr. unt. d. Todten, 
p. 836, also West. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, 
p. 280), has nowhere in Scripture any ba- 
sis whatever. See, in opposition to it, 


Delitzsch, p. 488; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. 
Werk, III. 2, p. 436, who, however (p. 74 f.), 
for his part, answers in the affirmative the 
question, whether we are to think of ‘a 
change of clothing and clothing over of the 
new man out of the transfigured corporeality 
of the Lord, whose communion is the blessed 
bread and the blessed cup.’ In any case 
yuuvot is the negation of corporeality. But 
the question remains untouched (comp. the 
cautious remarks of J. Miiller, p. 425), what 
organ of its activity the soul retains in 
death, when itis divested of the body. 
On this point we have no instruction in 
Scripture, and conjectures (like Weisse’s 
conception of the nerve-spirit) lead to noth- 
ing. The opinion that the ZLord’s Supper 
has a transfiguring power over the body 
goes partly against Scripture (because it 
presupposes the participation of the ¢rans- 
Jigured body of Christ) and partly beyond 
Scripture (because the latter contains noth- 
ing regarding any power of the Lord’s Sup- 
per over the body). Ultra quod Scriptum 
est is also the conception in Delitzsch of the 
body-like appearance of the bodiless soul 
itself, or of an owtline of the same resem- 
bling in form its true inward state. Such 
theories bring us into the realm of phantas- 
magoric hypotheses. 


CHAP. V., 4. 515 


© 


in the case thatave shall be unclothed (shall have died before the Parousia), shall be 
found not naked (bodiless), in which the idea would be implied: assuming, 
namely, that we in every case, even in the event of our having died before the 
Parousia, will not appear before Christ without a body; hence the wish of 
attaining the new body without previous death is all the better founded 
(erevdvoacfa:). Similarly Riickert. Kling (in the Stud. wu. rit. 1839, p. 511) 
takes it inaccurately : ‘‘allhough we, evenif an unclothing has ensued, will not be 
found bare,’ by which Paul is held to say: ‘‘even if the severing process of 
death has ensued, yet the believers will not appear bodiless on the day of the 
Lord, since God gives them the resurrection-body.”! The error of this view 
lies in although. No doubt Kling, with Lachmann, reads cizep. But even this 
never means quamvis (not even in 1 Cor. viii. 5), and the Homeric use of eimep 
in the sense : if also nevertheless, if even ever so much (Odyss. i. 167 ; Il. i. 81, and 
Nagelsbach’s note thereon, p. 43, ed. 3), especially with a negative apodosis (see 
Hartung, I. p. 339 ; Kthner, IT. p. 562), passed neither into the Attic writers 
nor into the N, T. 


Ver. 4. An explanation defining more precisely, and therewith giving a 
reason for (yap), ver. 3, after a frequent practice of the apostle. Comp. iv. 
10, 11. In this xa/, even serves to emphasize the oi évte¢ év r. ox., just as 
with éy rotrw in ver. 2. — The év rotrw of ver. 2 is here more precisely de- 
fined by oi évrec év 76 oxfver, in which oi évrec is prefixed with emphasis : for 
even as those who wre still in the tent, i.e. for even as those whose sojourn in 
the tent is not yet at an end ; already while we are still in possession of the bodily 
life, which duration of time is opposed to the moment of the possible xard- 
Avowc Tov oxhvovc, when the tent is left, and when the longing and sighing after 
the new body would be still stronger ; comp. on ver. 2. From the very 
position of the cai Hofmann is wrong in making its emphasis fall on Bapoi- 
pevot, Which extoats sighs from us, and then taking oi évte¢ év tr. ox. In anti- 
thetic reference to what is afterwards affirmed of these subjects, since they 
prefer to remain in the earthly life (comp. oi Cavrec, iv. 11). The ot dvtec ev Tr. 
ox. can only, in fact, be the same as the év rott» of ver. 2, which, however, 
Hofmann has already wrongly understood in another way ; the two ex- 
pressions explain one another. —76 cxfve:| The article expresses the tent 
which is defined by the connection (the body). — Bapotuevor| definition as- 
signing a reason for orevdt. : inasmuch as we are depressed ; not, however, 
propter calamitates (i. 8), as Piscator, Emmerling, Schneckenburger, Fritzsche 
suppose without any ground in the context, but the cause of the pressure 
which extorts the sighs is expressed by the following é@ © ob Oé2ouev K.T.2., 
so that Bapotpevar, éd’ @ ob OéAouev x.T.A. 1S & More precise explanation of the 
TO OlKNTHpLOY .. . . émumobowrtec Of Ver.2. — é¢’ @] 7.6. él TobTw 671, propterea quod, 
as Rom. v. 12 ; see on that passage. Comp. here particularly Ovudv Bapivew 
éxi tu, Pind. Pyth. i. 162 f. ; orevdtew éxi tron, Soph. Hl. 1291 ; Xen. Cyr. 
iv. 3. 3: daxvduevoc éxi rovrore. We feel ourselves as oppressed by a burden, 
because we are not willing, i.e. have an antipathy, to unclothe, etc. ‘The oppres- 


1 So in the main did Chrysostominterpret comp. Matthaei in Joc.): xav arobépucba Td 
the reading éxdvoduevor (for SO We are to cama, ov xwpis TwHmatos Exel TapacTyTOMEOa, 
read in the explanation first quoted by him, GAAG Kal META TOU aiToU adOapTov yevouevov, 


516 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
4 

sive part of this od OéAouev éxdioacfa, aA érevdtoacba: lies in the ever present 
possibility of the éxdicac6w. Emmerling and Fritzsche take é¢’ » as quare 
(see Elsner, ad Rom. v. 12 ; Matthiae, p. 1378) : ‘‘ Nam in hoc corpore ad 
calamitates valde ingemisco (kad. . . . yap Bapvv.) et propter hance ipsam 
malorum molem (é¢’ @) nolo quidem, wt haec propulsetur, mortem oppetere 
(écdvc.),”” etc. But there is nothing of the malorwm moles in the context ; 
and if we should wish, as the context allowed, with Osiander and older 
commentators, to refer Bapoiu. to the pressure which the body as such (the 
cxijvoc) causes to us by its onus peccati et crucis (comp. Wisd. ix. 15), and 
then to explain ig’ 6 : and in order to get rid of this pressure ; this would be 
at variance with the parallel in ver. 2, according to which the sighing 
must appear to be caused by the special longing (which in ver. 4 is, by 
way of more precise definition, designated as an oppressing one), not by 
another pressure.’ This, at the same time, in opposition to Usteri and 
Schneckenburger, who take it as wherewpon (comp. Kiihner II. p. 298). 
According to Beza, it means in quo, sc. tabernaculo, and, according to 
Flatt, even although. At variance with linguistic usage. Ewald, taking 
Bapotu. of the burden of the whole earthly existence, explains it : “in so far 
as we wish not to be unclothed, and so set forth as naked and guilty and 
cast into hell, but to be clothed over.” Against this it may be urged that é¢’ o 
does not mean quatenus (é#’ dcov), and that the interpretation of ‘‘ being un- 
clothed” in the sense of rewm jiert is not grounded in the text ; see on ver. 
3. — OéAouev| Out of this we are not, with Grotius, Emmerling, and others, 
to make malumus ; otherwise #7 must have stood instead of a4/4, 1 Cor. xiv. 
19. The od 6éAew is the nolle, the not being willing (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
278 ; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274), of the disinclination of natural feeling. 
— G2] se. Oéhopev. —iva xatarob x.t.2.| We wish to be clothed over, 7 
order that, in this desired case, what is mortal in us may be swallowed up (may 
be annihilated, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 54) by life, t.e. by the new, immortal 
power of life which is imparted to us in the moment of the change (of the 
érevdboacba). “Qorep avicyov Td b&¢ povdov Td oKdTo¢g ToLEt, OVTHC 7 aVOAEOpOS 
Can THY PGopav agdavifer, Theodoret. (v*) ; 


Remark.—There is no fear of death in this utterance of the apostle, but 
rather the shrinking from death, that pertains to human nature—the shrink- 
ing from the process of death as a painful one. His wish was not to die first 
before the Parousia and then to be raised up, but to be transformed alive ; 
and what man, to whom the nearness of the Parousia was so certain, could 
have wished otherwise? His courage in confronting death, which -was no 
Stoical contempt of death, remained untouched by it. 


Ver. 5. Aé] not antithetic (Hofmann), but continuative ; this wish is no 
groundless longing, but we are placed by God in a position for the longed- 


1 Osiander: ‘“‘ wherefore we long to have self-evident that of this explication of é¢’ é 
ourselves not unclothed, but clothed over, there is nothing in the text: even apart 
because in the very act of dying the pressure from the fact, that Osiander explains as if 
of the tabernacle becomes heaviest, when it, as the words were é¢° & OéAomev ovK Exd¥oardat 
tt were, collapses over its inhabitant.’’ Itis  «.t.A, 


CHAR. Viy76, 517 


for change which swallows up death. Now He who has made us ready for 
this very thing is God. —eic¢ aitd rovro] for this very behalf, for this very thing, 
Rom. ix. 17, xiii. 6 ; Eph. vi. 18, 22; Col. iv. 8. According to the con- 
text, it cannot apply to anything else than to the érevdioaoSa:, whereby the 
mortal will be swallowed up of life. or this precisely Paul knew his indi- 
viduality to be disposed by God, namely (see what follows) through the 
Holy Spirit, in the possession of which he had the divine guarantee that at 
the Parousia he should see his mortal part swallowed up of life, and consc- 
quently should not be amongst those liable to eternal destruction. In this 


‘way the usual reference of aitd rovro to the eternal glory is to be limited 


more exactly in accordance with the context ; comp. also Maier. Bengel 


wrongly refers it to the sighing, pointing to Rom. viii. 23.1. But how inap- 
_ propriate this is to the context ! And how unsuitable in that case would 


be the description of the Holy Spirit as apjafév, since, according to Bengel, 
He is to be conceived as ‘‘suspiria operans” ! Quite as unsuitable is the 
reference of xarepy. to the creation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Beza, and others, also Schneckenburger), which has no place here even as 
the beginning of the preparation indicated (in opposition to Ewald); Riick- 
ert remains undecided. — 6 dove juiv x.7.2..] predicative more precise defini- 
tion of the previous 6 dé xatepy. juac. . . Sede ; He who (quippe qui) has 
given to us the Spirit as earnest ; see oni. 22. As earnest, namely, of the 
fact that we shall not fail to be clothed upon with the heavenly body at the 
Parousia (which Paul was convinced he would live to see). Comp. Rom. 
vili. 11, andthe Remark thereon. The usual reference of 7. a)fa8.: arrham 
Suturae gloriae, is here too general for the context. The view of Hofmann 
regarding 6 dove juiv x.t.A., that the possession of the Spirit, etc., cancels 
the distinction between being unclothed and being clothed over, and takes 
away the natural shrinking from death, falls with his explanation of «arepyac. 
Hu.-ei¢ avTo TovTo ; see the Remark. 

Ver. 6. The resulting effect of ver. 5 on the apostle’s tone of mind.— 
Estius (comp. Erasmus, Annot.) rightly saw that the participle does not 
stand for the finite verb (as Flatt still holds, with most of the older com- 
mentators), but that ver. 6 is an anacoluthon, as the construction is quite 


1 This reference has been in substance the language used in the passage. For 


repeated by Hofmann (comp. also his 
Schriftbew. II. 2,p. 475 f.). In place of his 
former misinterpretation, according to 
which he took katepydgecdar as to work 
down, break the spirit (see, in opposition to 
this, my third edition, p. 115, Remark), he 
has substituted the other crroneous expla- 
nation, that xarepyageodar is to be held as 
“to bring one to the point of doing something,” 
that eis av7d todT0 applies to the disinclina- 
tion, to being unclothed, and that the means 
by which God brings us to the point of not 
‘wishing to be unclothed is obviously the 
terribleness of death. The last point is purely 
imported, and the whole explanation is 
excluded by its very inconsistency with 


Katepyaceodac means, with Greek writers, fo 
bring one to something, but always only in 
the sense to prevail on one for something for 
which we wish to get him, to win him jor 
one’s ends, whether this be effected by per- 
suasion or by other influence directed to 
the end. Soalso Judg. xvi. 16; Xen. diem. 
ii. 3. 11. Our expression to work on & person 
is similar. Comp. also Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 16; 
Herod. vii. 6 (katepyaoato kai avémece), ix. 
108 ; Strabo, x. 5, p. 483 (mevdot catepydcovtac), 
In the N. T. the word never means any- 
thing else than ¢o set at work, bring aboui, 
and in this sense it occurs frequently in 
Paul. Nor is it otherwise used here. 


518 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. | 


broken off by ver. 7, but the thought is taken up again with Yappoipev dé In 
ver. 8. See Fritzsche, Diss. Il. p. 48 ff.; Winer, p. 5383 [E. T. 717 f.]; 
Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 252 [E. T. 292]. We must therefore not treat 
ver. 7 (Beza and others), nor even vv. 7 and 8 (Olshausen, Ewald), as a 
‘parenthesis. Paul intended to write : Gappovvtec obv mavtote Kai eidétec. . . 
kupiov, evdokovpev waAdov K.t.A.,. but was carried away from this by the inter- 
vening thought of ver. 7, and accordingly wrote as he has done. Comp. on 
ver. 8. Hofmann’s opinion, that dappovpev dé x.7.2. 18 apodosis to the par- 
ticipial protasis Vappovvtec ody x.7.A., would only be grammatically tenable 
(comp. on Acts xiii, 45) if there were no dé in ver. 8. This dé, as is always 
the case with dé of the apodosis, even in the examples in Hartung, I. p. 186, 
would be adversative (on the contrary), which is not suitable here, and is not 
to be logically supported by the added xk. eidox. wariov (see on ver. 8). — 
Jappooyrec| in all afflictions, iv. 17.— xdvrore] In no time of trouble does 
Paul know hinself deserted by this confident courage, iv. 8 ff., vi. 4 ff. — 
kai eidétec k.T.A.| This likewise follows from ver. 5, and likewise serves as 
ground for the eidoxotpev x.7.2. of ver. 8 ; hence it is not, with Calvin, to be 
explained : guia scimus (as giving a reason for the Vappovrvrec), nor with 
Estius, Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Flatt, Olshausen, in a limiting sense : while 
we yet, or although we know. — évdnuodvtec tv TH copu.| being at home in the 
body, i.e. while the body is the place of our home. The body is here also 
conceived as oixia (not civitas, as Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, and others 
hold), and that an oixia out of which we have not yet migrated, Erasmus : 
‘‘quamdiu domi sumus in hoc corporis habitaculo.” Comp. Plato, Legg. 
xl. p. 594 B: édv 8 arodnuéy oixiacg deorétye tuyyavy, Aesch. Choeph. 569. — 
éxdnuovpev ard Tt. kup.| peregre absumus a Domino. For in respect to the future 
cternal home with Christ (1 Thess. iv. 17; Phil. i. 23, iii. 20 ; Heb. xi. 13, 
xiii. 14), the temporary home in the earthly body isa sojourn abroad, an 
éxdyuia, Which keeps us ata distance from Christ. On arr. kup., comp. 
Rom. ix. 8; Ameis on Hom. Od. xiv. 525, appendix. 

Ver. 7. Reason assigned for the évdjuovvteg . . . xvpiov. For through faith 
we walk, etc.; faith is the sphere through which we walk, i.e. faith is the 
clement through which our earthly life moves. Tf we walked dia eidove, seeing 
that this presupposes the being together with Christ, we should not be 
exdnuovvTec ard Tov Kvpiov., The object of faith we must from the whole con- 
nection conceive to be the Lord in His glory, whose real form (ré eidoc) we 
shall only have before us when we are with Him. Comp. Rom. viii. 17; 1 
Thess. iv. 17; John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 8, al. — dud riorewe] quite in accord- 
ance with the Greek phrase dud dcxasootvye iévaz. Comp. mepirateiv did Tov 
ddtoc, Rev. xxi. 24, and the classical expressions ropeteoVac d1a Tév WOovarv and 
the like; sce, in general, Valckenaer, ad Phoeniss. 402 ; Heindorf, ad Protag. 
p- 828 A; Hermann, ad Oed. Col. 905 ; Bernhardy, p. 285. — od dud eidove] 
i.e. not 80, that we are surrounded by the appearance, not so, that we have 
before us Christ, the Exalted One, in His real appearance and form, 7.¢. in 
His visible défa, and that this glorious. eido¢ shines round us in our -walk.. 
Comp. John xvii. 24, and the rpdécwrov rpd¢ rpdowrov, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. eldog 
never means, as it is mostly explained, vision (not even in Num. xii. 8), but 





CHAP. Mi Oe 519 


always species. (x*) The Vulgate renders rightly : per speciem. See Luke 
ii. 22, 1x. 29; John v. 37; 1 Thess. v. 22; Duncan, Lev., ed. Rost, p. 
333 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 607 f.; Tittmann, Synon. p. 119, who, however, 
with the assent of Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. p. 100), wrongly takes it : eater- 
na rerum specie captum vivere, so that the meaning would be : ‘‘ Vita nostra 
immortali illa spe, non harum rerum vana specie regitur.” According to 
this view, different objects would quite arbitrarily be assumed for riori¢ and 
eldog ; and further, where Paul specifies with rep:rareiv that by which it is 
defined, he uses as a prepositional expression not did, but card (Rom. viii. 4, 
xiv. 15, al.), or renders palpable the manner of the walking by é» (iv. 2 ; 
Rom. vi. 4, a/.), or characterizes it by the dative, as xii. 18; Gal. v. 16. 
These reasons tell also in opposition to Hofmann, who explains dé of the 
walk, which has its quality from faith, etc., and ecidog of an outward form of 
the walker himse/f, in which the latter presents himself as visible.-—Regard- 
ing the relation of the da riotewe to the did eidovc, observe that in the tem- 
poral life we have the ziorse, and not the eidoc, while in the future world 
through the Parousia there is added to the zioric also the eidoc, but the for- 
mer does not thereby cease, it rather remains eternal (1 Cor. xiii. 138). 

Ver. 8. But we have good courage and are well pleased, etc. With this Paul re- 
sumes the thought of ver. 6, and carries it on, yet without keeping to the con- 
struction there begun. The idea of the Vappoiuev must in this resumption 
be the same as that of the Oappowrrec in ver. 6, namely, the idea of confident | 

courage in suffering. This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes vappovytes 
rightly of courage in suffering, but Sappovuev of courage in death, making 
the infinitive éxdyujoa: depend also on Vappovimuev (see below). — dé, no doubt, 
links on again the discourse interrupted by the parenthesis (Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 847; Pilugk, ad Hurip. Hee. 1211; Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 21), 
which may also happen, where no dé has preceded (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
377); since, however, Vappovrrec 18s not repeated here, we must suppose that 
Paul has quite dropped the plan of the discourse begun in ver. 6 and _ bro- 
ken off by ver. 7, and returns by the way of contrast to what was said in ver. 
6. Accordingly there occurs an adversative reference to the previous dad 
TOT. TepiTatoupuer, ov dvd eidovc, in so far as this state of things as to the course 
of his temporal life does not make the apostle at all discontented and dis- 
couraged, but, on the contrary, leaves his Yappeiv, already expressed in ver. 
6, quite untouched, and makes his desire tend rather towards being from 
home, etc. Comp. Hartung, I. p. 1738. 2; Klotz, /.c. Thus there is a logi- 
cal reason why Paul has not writtenoiy. Comp. on Eph. ii. 4. — On cidoxeiv 
in the sense of being pleased, of Placet mihi, comp. 1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i. 15; 
Col. i.19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8; Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 370. — éxdnujoat éx tov 
coparoc| to be-from-home out of the body, is not to be understood of the change 
at the Parousia (Kaeuffer, (a7 aidv., p. 80f.), but, in accordance with the 
context, must be the opposite of évdnuovvrec ev TH COpuati, Ver. 6 ; Consequent- 
ly in substance not different from éxcdicacSa, ver. 4. Hence the only right 
interpretation is the usual one of dying, in consequence of which we are-from- 
home out of the body. Comp. Phil. i. 23 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 67, B, C. The 
infinitive is dependent only on eidoxoiyev, not also on Gappovuev (Hofmann), 


20 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Or 


since Jappeiv with the infinitive means to venture something, to undertake to 
do something, which would not suit here (comp. Xen. Cyr. viii. 8. 6 ; Hero- 
dian, ii. 10. 18),—even apart from the fact that this use of Sappeiy (equiva- 
lent to roAuav (is foreign to the N. T. and rare even among Greek writers. 
The eidoxovyev x.7.A. 18 something greater than the Vappovuev. This pas- 
sage stands to ver. 4, where Paul has expressed the desire not to die but to be 
transformed alive, in the relation not of contradiction, but of climax; the 
shrinking from the process of dying is, through the consideration contained 
in ver. 5 and in the fecling of the courage which it gives (ver. 6), now over- 
come, and in place of it there has now come the inclination rather (ua/Aov) 
to see the present relation of évdnueiv év 76 owats and- éxdnueiv ard Tov Kupiov 
(ver. 6) reversed, rather,’ therefore, éxdypuqgoat &éx TOU COpmaTog Kai 
évonuqgoat tpdo¢ Tov Kbpcov, which will take place through death, if 
this should be appointed to him in his apostolic conflicts and sufferings (iv. 
_7 ff£.), for in that case his spirit, having migrated from his body, will not, 
separated from Christ, come into Hades, but will be at home with the Lord 
in heaven—a state the blessedness of which will later, at the day of the 
Parousia, receive the consummation of glory. The certainty of coming by 
martyrdom into heaven to Christ is consequently not to be regarded asa 
certainty only apprehended subsequently by Paul. See Phil. i. 26, Remark. 

Ver. 9. Therefore, because we evdoxotpev x.T.2., ver. 8, we exert ourselves 


also. Bengel: ‘‘ut assequamur quod optamus.” — ¢cAoriu.] denotes the 
striving, in which the end aimed at is regarded as a matter of honour. See 
on Rom. xy. 20. Bengel well says : ‘‘haec una ambitio legitima.” But 


there is no hint of a contrast with the ‘‘ honowr-coveting courage of the heathen 
in dying” (Hofmann). — cite évdnuovvrec, eite éxdnuovvtec| 1s either connected 
with @Aoriu. (Calvin and others, including Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, 
Ewald, Osiander) or with etdpecto: aité eivae (so Chrysostom and many 
others, including Castalio, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Flatt, 
Hofmann). The decision must depend upon the explanation. Chrysostom, 
Calvin, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, supply with évdyu.: mpdc¢ 
In that case it must be connected 
with evdpecto: abt eivac (Chrysostom : 7d yap Cytobuevov rovrd éori dyow' av Te 


Tov kbpiov, and with éxdynu.: ard Tov Kupiov. 


éxel Ouev, av Te Evtavda, KaTa yvouny avtod Cyv), not with @Aoriwobueda (Calvin : 
Paul says, ‘‘ tam mortuis quam vivis hoe inesse studium”) ; for they who are 
at home with Christ are well-pleasing to Him, and, according to Rom. vi. 
7, Paul cannot say of them that they strive to be so. The striving refers 
merely to the earthly life, and one strives to be well-pleasing to the Lord 
as éxdyuav az’ avtov, not as évdnudv mpdc airév. For in the case of those who 
évdnuovoar mpoc Tov Kbpiov, the continuance of their being well-pleased is a self- 


1 uaddov therefore belongs neither to 
evdoxodmev nor to Gapp. x. evdox., as if Paul 
- would say that he has this courage stil/ 
more than that meant in ver. 6 (Hofmann), 
but to éxdnujcat . . . Kv’piov. We wish that, 
instead of the present home in the body, 
ete., there may rather (potius) set in the 
being-from-hone out of the body and the being- 


at-home with the Lord. This “ rather” no 
more yields an awkward idea here (as Hof- 
mann objects) than it does in all other pas- 
sages where it is said that one wills, ought 
to do, or does, instead of one thing rather 
the other. Comp. é.g. 1 Cor. v. 2, Vi. 7; Rom. 
xiy. 13; John iii. 19. 


CHAP. V., 10. 521 


evident moral fact. On this account, and because quite an illogical order 
of the two clauses would be the result (et tune et nunc /), the whole of Chrys- 
ostom’s explanation, and even its mode of connection, is erroneous. The 
right explanation depends on our completing évdyuoivtes by év tH comari, 
and éxdyuovvtes by éx tov cHuatoc ; for that rd cdua is still the idea which 
continues operative from vv. 6, 8, as shown by rd dvd rot cépuaroc in ver. 10, 
an expression occasioned by the very reference to the body, which is before 
the mind in ver. 9. Further, we must clearly maintain that éxdyjyobvrec, in 
contrast to évdnuotvtec, does not mean : migrating, i.e. dying, but: peregre 
~ absentes, being from home (comp. Soph. Oed. R. 114 : Sewpde ixdudv, a pil- 
grim from home), just as in ver. 6 éxdyywotpev was peregre absumus, and in 
ver. 8 éxdnpujou peregre abesse.' Hence we must reject all explanations which 
give the meaning : living or dying (Calovius, Bengel, Ewald, Osiander, who 
find the totality of life expressed with a bringing into prominence of the 
last moment of life), or even: ‘‘stve diutius corport immanendum, sive co 
exeundum sit” (Erasmus, Paraphr., Emmerling), to which Riickert ulti- 
mately comes, introducing Paul’s alleged illness ; while de Wette thinks 
that Paul includes mention of the departure from life only to show that he 
is prepared for everything. We should rather keep strictly to the meaning 
of éxdyu., peregre absentes ex corpore (comp. Vulgate : absentes), and explain 
it: We exert ourselves to be well-pleasing to the Lord, whether we (at His Pa- 
rousia) are still at-home in the body, or are already from-home out of it, con- 
sequently, according to the other figure used before, already éxdvodpevor, 2.6. 
already dead, so that we come to be judged before Him (more precisely : 
before His judgment-seat, ver. 10), not through the being changed, like 
the évdyjuovvrec, but through the being raised up. It is thus self-evident 
that eite évdnuotvrec x.T.2. must be attached not to ¢Aotiwobucha, but to 
ebdpeotot avT@ eivat, aS Was done by Chrysostom, although with an erroneous 
explanation. 

Ver. 10. Objective motive of this striving. — rob¢ ydp rdvrac juac] no one 
excepted. It applies to all Christians ; comp. Rom. xiv. 10. — dei] a divine 
appointment, which is not to be evaded. — ¢avepodjrac] This does not im- 
ply ‘‘the concealment hitherto of the dead ” (de Wette), for the living also 
are judged, but means: manifestos jieri cum occultis nostris (Bengel, comp. 
Beza). Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5; Rom. ii. 16. Thus it is distinguished from 
the mere rapaorjva, iv. 14, Rom. xiv. 10, for which Grotius takes it ; and 
it is arbitrary to declare this distinction unnecessary (Riickert), since that 
conception corresponds alike with the word (comp. ver. 11) and the fact. 
Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. — koyioyrac] Moral actions are, accord- 
ing to thg idea of adequate requital, conceived as something deposited, 
which at the last judgment is carried away, received, and taken with us, 
namely, in the equivalent reward and punishment. Comp. Eph. vi. 8 ; Col. 


* 


1In this case, however, there isnot the is obvious of itself. Grotius felt this, and 
contrast: et nunc et tunc, in this and in that hence, substituting another meaning in the 
life, as Beza, Grotius, and others suppose, second clause, he explains it: *‘ nwne vitam 
connecting it with evdapeoro civar,. For nostramipsi probando, tune ab ipso praemi- 
with the present well-pleasing the future umaccipiendo.” See, against this, Calovius, 


522 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

lii. 25; Gal. vi. 7 ; Matt. vi. 20; Rev. xiv. 18. — 7a dud tov cdparoc| sc. dvra, 
that which is brought about through the body, that which has been done by 
means of the activity of the bodily life (7d céva as organic instrument of the 
Ego in its moral activity generally ; hence not: rie capxéc). Corhp., on 
dtd Tov chuartoc, expressions like rap ydovdv ai did Tov cbuaréde eiow, Plat. Phaed. 
p- 65 A 3 aiodjoete ai 61a Tod cHpatoc, Phaedr. p. 250 D, al. ; Kitihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. iv. 5. 3.1 Instead of Luther’s : in the life of the body (so also de Wette 
and many others), through the life of the body would be better. There is no 
reason for taking the dvd merely of the state ii. 11). The thought of the 
resurrection-body, with which the recompense is to be received (to which view 
Osiander, following the Fathers and some older commentators, is inclined), 
is alien to the context (vv. 6, 8, 9) ; besides, merely dud rod cou. would be 
used without 7d. — The zpodc¢ & éxpafev contains the standard of righteous- 
ness, in accordance with.which every one xoyicera ra dud Tov opmaTog : cor- 
responding to what he has done. — site ayaddv, cite xaxév] se. éxpake. The 
recompense of the wicked may take place as well by the assigning of a 
lower degree of the Messianic salvation (1 Cor. tii. 15 ; 2 Cor. ix. 6) as by 
exclusion from the Messianic kingdom (1 Cor. vi. 9 f. ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. 
VO). (Z5) | 


Remarr.—Our passage does not, as Flatt thought, refer to a special judgment 
which awaits every man inmediately after death (a conception quite foreign to 
the apostle), but to the last judgment conceived as near; and it results from 
it that, according to Paul, the atonement made through the death of Jesus, in 
virtue of which the pre-Christian guilt of those who had become believers was 
blotted out, does not do away with the requital of the moral relation estab- 
lished in the Christian state. Comp. Rom. xiv. 10, 12; 1 Cor. iv. 5. They 
come in reality not simply before the judgment (to receive their graduated re- 
ward of grace, as Osiander thinks), but into the judgment ; in John iii. 18, the 
last judgment is not spoken of, and as to 1 Cor. vi. 2 f., see on that passage. 
Paul, however, does not thereby say that, if the Christian has fallen and turns 
back again to faith, the atonement through Christ does not benefit him; on 
the contrary, the wetavora of the Christian is a repetition of his passing over to 
faith, and the effect of the atonement (of the iAaornpiov ) is repeated, or rather 
continues for the Christian individual, so that even the Christian sins are 
blotted out, when one returns from the life of sin into that of faith. But the 
immoral conduct of Christians, continuing without this perdvoa, is liable to 
the punishment of the judgment, because they in such an event have frustrated 
as to themselves the aim of the plan of redemption. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. 
p. 379. This in opposition to Riickert’s opinion, that Puul knows nothing of a 
continuing effect of the merit of Christ. This continuing effect is implied not only 
in the general Pauline doctrine that eternal life is God’s gift of grace (Rom. vi. 


1 The reading ra tSva tod cépmaros (Arm. doctrine of original sin, because children 


Vulg. It. Goth. Or. twice, and many Fa- 
thers), which Grotius and Mill approved, 
is to be regarded as a gloss, in which ra da 
was meant to be defined more precisely by 
7a idta, In the Pelagian controversy the 
iéva acquired importance for combating the 


could not have done any téva peccata, and 
hence could not be liable to judgment. On 
the other hand, Augustine, #p. 107, laid 
stress on the imputation of Adam’s sin, ac- 
cording to which it was the moral property 
even of children. 


SPOHA POV gle 523 


23), and in the idea of Christ’s intercession (Rom. viii. 34; comp. Heb. vii. 25, 
ix. 24 ; 1 John ii. 1, 2), but also in passages like 2 Cor. vii. 10, compared with 
Rom, v. 9, 10,17. We mayadd the apt remark of Liicke on 1 John, p. 147: 
- “Asa single past and concluded fact, it (Christ’s atoning work) would be just 
a mere symbol ; it has fuil truth only in its continuing efficacy.” 


Vv. 11-21. Since we thus fear Christ, we persuade men, but we are mani- 
fest to God, and, it is to be hoped, also to you (ver. 11,) by which we never- 
theless do not wish to praise ourselves, but to give you occasion to boast of 
us against our opponents (ver. 12). For for this you have cause, whether we 
may be now mad (as our opponents say) or in possession of reason (ver. 18). 
Proof of the latter (vv. 14, 15), from which Paul then infers that he no 
longer knows any one after the flesh, as formerly, when he had so known 
Christ, and that hence the Christian is a new creature (vv. 16, 17). And 
this new creation is the work of God (vv. 18, 19), whence results the exalted 
standpoint of the apostolic preaching, which proclaims reconciliation (vv. 
20, 21). 

Ver. 11. Oi] in pursuance of what has just been said, that we all before 
the judgment-seat of Christ, etc., ver. 10. —r. ¢éBov 7. xvpiov] The genitive 
is not genitivus subjecti (equivalent to ré doBepov t.xvp.), aS Emmerling, Flatt, 
Billroth, Osiander, and others hold, following Chrysostom and most of the 
older commentators (comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 518; Klausen, ad Aesch. 
Choeph. 31); for the use of the expression with the genitive taken oljectively 
is the standing and habitual one in the LXX., the Apocrypha, and the N. T., 
according to the analogy of M7 O&) (vii. 1; Eph. v. 21; comp. Acts ix. 
31; Rom. iii. 18); and the context does not warrant us in departing from 
this. Hence : since we know accordingly the fear of Christ (as judge); since 
holy awe before Him is by no means to us a strange and unknown feeling, 
but, on the contrary, we know how much and in what way He is to be 
feared. The Vulgate renders rightly : timorem Domini ; Beza wrongly ; 
terrerem illum Domini, ¢.e. formidabile illud judicium.” — avbporov¢e 
retSouev] we persuade men, but God we do not need to persuade, like men; to 
Him we are manifest. The dvdp. revd. has been interpreted of the gaining 
over to Christianity (Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Emmerling, and 
others) : or of the apostolic working in general (Ewald) ; or of the correction 
of erroneous and offensive opinions regarding Paul (Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact ); or of the striving to make themselves pleasing to men (Erasmus, 
Luther, Elsner, Wolf, Hammond, Flatt, and others ;’ or of the persuadere 
hominibus nostram integritatem (Estius, Bengel, Semler, Olshausen, de Wette, 
Osiander, Neander). Billroth also, with quite arbitrary importation of the 
idea, thinks that retSouev is meant of illegitimate, deceitful persuasion: “I 
can indeed deceive men, but to God withal I am manifest.” Raphel takes 
it similarly, but with an interrogative turn. But this assumed meaning of 
rei9o must of necessity have been given by the context (which is not the 


1 Luther: “We deal softly with the peo- other wanton injunctions, for we fear God ; 
ple, z.e. we do not tyrannize over nor drive but we teach them gently, so that we dis- 
the people with excommunications and gust no one.”’ 


524 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


case even in Gal. iv. 10) ; and the idea of being able would in this view of 
the meaning be so essential, that it could not be conveyed in the mere indic- 
ative, which, on the contrary, expresses the actually existing state of things, 
as well as the following redavep. Olshausen erroneously attempts to correct 
this explanation to the effect of our understanding the expression in refer- 
ence to the accusations of the opponents: ‘‘As our opponents say, we 
deceitfully persuade men, but before God we are manifest in our purity.” 
The ‘‘as our opponents say” is as arbitrarily invented, as is the conception 
of deceit in rei¥ouev. In defining the object of eiSouev, the only course 
warranted by the context is to go back to the immediately preceding self-wit- 
ness in ver. 9, dcAoriu. evapector avT@ eivas. (A°) Of this we bring men to the con- 
viction through our teaching and working, not: of the fact, that we fear 
the Lord (Zachariae, Riickert), since eiddrec tr. 668. T. kvp. is only of. the 
nature of a motive and a subsidiary thought ; hence also not : ‘‘ eundem 
hune timorem hominibus suademus” (Cornelius & Lapide, Clericus, and 
others). Comp. Pelagius: ‘‘ut caveant;” and again Hofmann: we convince 
others of the duty and the right mode of fearing the Lord. After avdpdrove 
there is no omission of yév (Riickert); but the: putting of the clause avdp. 
xe(}. without indicating its relation makes the following contrast appear 
surprising and thereby rhetorically more emphatic. —év rai¢ ovveid. tuov] 
Calvin aptly says: ‘‘Conscientia enim longius penetrat, quam carnis judici- 
um.” In the syllogism of the conscience (law of God—act of man—moral 
judgment on the same) the action of a third party is here the minor premiss. 
The individualizing plural of cvveid. is not elsewhere found; yet comp. iv. 
2. —negavepoova| the perfect infinitive after éAmitw, which elsewhere in the 
N. T. has only the aorist infinitive coupled with it, is here logically necessary 
in the connection. For Paul hopes, z.e. holds the opinion under the hope 
of its being confirmed, that he has become and is manifest in the conscience 
of the readers (present of the completed action). Comp. Hom. Jl. xv. 110: 
900 yap viv sArow "Apni ye khua terby Sa, Od. vi. 297; Eurip. Suppl. 790. 
Ver. 12. Ob dd éavr. ovvior.] See on iii. 1. The éavroic (not again self- 
praise do we practise) does not stand in contrast with the juiv following after 
6.0. (Fritzsche, Osiander), because otherwise iuiv must have stood imme- 
diately after aad. — dard ddopy. diddvtec x.7.2.] We should not, with Beza 
and Flatt, supply éouév, but Aéyowev taita, which flows from the previous 
éaut. cuviot. See Matthiae, p. 1534 ; Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 393]. —xavyfuaro¢g irép ju.| Here also xatynua is not 
(comp. Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14) equivalent to 
kabynowe (de Wette and many others), but is materies gloriandi. The thought 
of the apostle is, that he gives the readers occasion for finding matter to 
make their boast to his advantage (izép, comp. ix. 8, vil. 4, vill. 24, vil. 14, 
ix, 2, xii. 5). The whole phrase daAd ddopuqy x.t.2. combines with 
all the strength of apostolic self-confidence a tender delicacy, in which, 
nevertheless, we cannot help seeing a touch of irony (for Paul presents the 
cold and adverse disposition towards him, into which a part of the church 


1It is different with éféornuev, ver. 13, accusation of the opponents; but this is 
where the /iteral sense in itself pointstoan not the case with wetdouev, 


CHAP. V.; 12. ‘ 


¥ 


525 


had allowed itself to be brought by the hostile teachers, as lack of occasion 
to make their boast on his account !). — After éyyre there is supplied either 
ri (Acts xxiv. 19) : in order that you may have somewhat to oppose to those 
who, etc. (so Calvin and the most), or 7? 2éyexv (Theodoret, de Wette, 
Osiander), or kabynua (rather xaby. ixép ju., for these words go together). 
So Camerarius, Zeger, and others, including Riickert and Ewald. But 
since give and have are evidently correlative, the context leads us (comp. 
Hofmann also) to supply adoppjv kavyhuatoc trip ju. : in order that ye may 
have this occasion, have it in readiness (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 26) to make use 
of it, against those who, etc. xpédc, according to the context, denotes the 
direction contra, Matthiae, p. 13890. — rpoc rode év rpocérw xavy., x. ob Kapdia. | 
against those, who make their boast for the sake of countenance and not of heart. 
A. very striking description of the opponents as hypocritical boasters, not of 
the making a parade of their being immediate disciples of Christ (Hilgen- 
feld). The object of their self-boasting is the countenance, the holiness, the 
zeal, the love, etc., which present themselves on their countenance, but of 
the heart they make no boast ; for of that of which they boast, their heart 
is empty.’ ‘‘ Ubi, autem inanis est ostentatio, illic nulla sinceritas, nulla 
animi rectitudo,” Calvin. It is self-evident withal to the reader that this 
whole description is expressed according to the true state of the case, and 
not according to the design of the persons described themselves ; for these 
wished, of course, to pass at all events for persons who with their self-boast- 
ing exhibited the virtues of their hearts, and not the semblance of their 
faces. Comp. Theophylact (following Chrysostom) : rovtto: yap joav eiAa- 
Beiag pév Exovtec Tpoowreiov (mask), év dé xapdia oidév dépovtec ayaddv. Usually 
(also by Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Riibiger, Neander) év zpo- 
cozy is taken in the wider sense: de rebus externis, to which is then opposed. 
in xapdia the purity of the disposition. Learning, eloquence, Jewish lineage, 
acquaintance with the older apostles, and the like, are held to be included 
in év mpocérw ; comp. Holsten, who recalls the ‘Efpaioi ciow «.7.2. in Xi. 22. 
But with what warrant from linguistic usage? Even in passages like 
1 Sam. xvi. 17, Matt. xxii. 16, rpécwrov means nothing else than countenance. 
Paul must have chosen some such conttfast as év capki xa? ob rvebuari, in order 
to be understood. Ewald explains it : ‘‘ who doubtless boast me before the 
face, when they see myself present, but not in the heart.” But xavywouévove 
cannot mean : who boast me, but only : who boast themselves. Inthe N. T., 
too, év with cavyaota: always denotes the object,? of which one makes boast, 


1 rpocémw, like xapdia, must refer to the 
persons concerned, and mean their counte- 
nance (as even Beyschlag grants). Hence 
it may not be taken, in accordance with 
Luke xiii. 26, of their having boasted that 
they had often seen, heard, perhaps even 
spoken with, Jesus, while yet they had gained 
no relation of the heart to him. This in op- 
position to Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1865, p. 266. For in that case it would, in 
fact, be the countenance of Jesus, which 
they would make it the contents of their 


boast that they had seen, etc. 

2 In x. 16 the object is denoted dy eis, 
whereby the reference to the locality is 
given for év dAdoTpi» kavove, so that in this 
passage the construction is not kavxacdat ev, 
but kavyacdat eis. On Kkavyactac ev, comp. 
the Latin gloriari in; Cic. WN. D. iii. 36. 87; 
Tusc. i. 21. 49; Catil. ii. 9. 20. The object is 
conceived as that, in which the cavyaoda is 
causally based. In the classics it is joined 
with émi, cis, and with the simple accusae 
tive. 


526 PAUL’S, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 
even in Jas. iv. 16. Comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 1. 20. This, at the same. 
time, in opposition to Hofmann’s view : ‘‘ they make their boast only in 
presence of others, and not inwardly before themselves.” Neither tpocarw (see 
Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 152]) nor xapdia (1 Thess. ii. 17 ; Rom. vi. 17, x. 10; 
2 Cor. ii. 4, al.) needed the article ; and there was just as little need for 
the self-evident aivév to be inserted (1 Thess. U.c.). Indeed, if Paul had 
meant what Hofmann thinks, he could not but, in order to be intelligible, 
have added the different genitival definitions (4AAw»—éavrév).  Bengel 
subtly and aptly remarks on xapdia: ‘* Haec Pauli vena erat ;: ab ejus corde 
fulgebat veritas ad conscientias Corinthiorum.” | 

Ver. 18, And you have reason for making your boast on our behalf over 
against the adversaries !—That Paul is here dealing, and that not without 
irony, with an odious accusation of his opponents (perhaps of an overseer 
of the church, according to Ewald), is evident, since otherwise the peculiar 
mode of expression used by him would appear quite uncalled for. It must 
have been asserted that he had gone out of his senses, that he had become mad 
(observe the aorist),—an assertion for which narrow-mindedness as well as 
malice might find cause enough, or seize pretext, in the extraordinary. hero- 
ism and divine zeal of his working in general, and especially in his sudden 
and wonderful conversion, in the ecstasies and visions’ which he had had, 
in his anti-Judaism at times unsparing, in his ideal demands on the Chris- 
tian life, in the prominence given to his consciousness of apostleship, to 
his sufferings, and the like. In reference to this accusation he now says : 
‘* For be it, that we have become mad (as our enemies venture to assert), it is a 
madness standing at the service of God (a holy mania, which deserves respect, 
not blame !) ; or be it, that we are of sound understanding, we are so for your 
service (which can only be found by you praiseworthy).” Comp. Aretius, 
Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 170), 
who, however, abides only by the apostle’s assertion, that he had seen 
Christ and was a full apostle, as the ground for this opinion of his oppo- 
nents. As early as the time of Chrysostom (he quotes an explanation : ¢ 
Lev paiveotal Tig yudcg vouiter K.T.A.) it was recognized that a glance at a hos- 
tile accusation was contained in é&é¢oryjyev, and this is remarked by most of 
the older and the modern commentators ; but there should have been the 
less hesitation at taking the word in its full sense (see on Mark iii. 21 ; 
comp. Acts xxvi. 24), whereas it was often weakened into : ultra modum 
agere,* or into: to be foolish (Chrysostom, Morus, Billroth), to seem to act 
Soolishly (Flatt), and the like, in spite of the following cudpovoduer, which 
is the exact opposite of having become mad (Plato, Phaedr. p. 244 A). 
Comp. Acts xxvi. 25. As regards the subject-matter, é¢éor. was mostly (as 
by Chrysostom and Theodoret) referred to the self-praise,* in which case 





1 Grotius limits the reference of é&éa7. to 
the trances alone; but the word in itself 
does not justify this. 

2So Bengel; and earlier Luther, who 
gives as gloss: ‘“‘If we do too much, i.e. if 
we deal at once sharply with the people, 
we still serve God by it; but if we act gen- 


tly and moderately with them, we do so for 
the people’s good, so that in every way we 
do rightly and well.”’ 

3 Comp. Pindar, Ol. ix. 58: 7d Kkavyacdar 
Tapa Katpov waviavoww vroxpéKet, Plato, Protag. 
Pp. 323 B: 6 éxet cwhpocvvnv yyovvto elvat, 
TAANTH A€yev, evTadda paviay, 


CHAP. V., 14. rt 


Cr 


Se was taken as: to the honour of God, and then ituiv was referred either 
to the salutary erample (iva wadyte tarevodpoveiv, Chrysostom, Flatt) or to 
the salutary condescension. So Erasmus,’ Vatablus, Menochius, Estius, Ben- 
gel, Emmerling, Olshausen. Billroth takes it differently : ‘‘ If, however, 
you put a rational construction on it (this boasting), in my case, I wish to 
have myself boasted of only for your advantage ; I do it only in order that 
you may not be deceived by my opponents regarding me.” But the whole 
reference to the self-praise is after ver. 12, where Paul has absolutely neg- 
atived the éavrot¢ ovviotdvouev buiv, contrary to the context ; and those ref- 
erences of juiv to the example shown, or to the apostolic condescension, or 
to a deception of the readers to be prevented, are not in keeping with the 
parallel %e@ ; and there is no reason in the context for sacrificing the uni- 
formity in compass of meaning of the two datives, so that iviv is not to be 
taken otherwise than with Grotius in the comprehensive sense of in vestros 
usus. According to Hofmann, éééor. is to be referred to the self-testimony 
expressed loftily and in the most exalted tone at ii. 14 ff. : ‘“‘If it might there 
be said that he had gone out of himself, on the other hand, the succeeding ex- 
_ planation (begun in iii. 1) could only produce the impression of sober ration- 
ality.”” But in this way there is in fact assumed a retrospective reference 
for ééor., which no reader and, excepting Hofmann, no expositor could 
have conjectured, and this all the less that from iii. 1 to the present passage 
Paul has been speaking of himself in a tone to a great extent lofty and ex- 
alted (e.g. ili. 2 f., 12 ff., the whole of chap. iv., particularly after ver. 7 ; 
also v. 1 ff.) ; so that we do not see on what so great a difference of judg- 
ment is to be based, as would be yielded by é&éc7. and cwdpov. It remains 
far from clear, we may add, what more precise conception Hofmann has of 
‘gone out of himself” (whether as insanity or merely as extravagance of 
emotion). —eite. . . eire]| does not here mark off two different conditions 
(Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, p. 182 ff.) and times, nor the actual change 
of moods and modes of behaviour (Osiander) which Paul would scarcely 
have designated according to different references of aim (comp. rather 7a 
mavra Ov tpuac, iv. 15), but two different modes of appearance of the same 
state, which are both asswmed as possibly right, but the latter of which is 
‘in ver. 14 proved to be right and the former excluded. 

Ver. 14 f. Paul now proves what was implied in ver. 18, that his whole 
working was done not in his own interest (comp. pyxéte éavroic, ver. 15), but 
for God and the brethren ; the love of Christ holds him in bounds, so that 
he cannot proceed or do otherwise. According to Riickert, Paul wishes to 
give a reason for the ei é&éornuev 3eG. But he thus arbitrarily overleaps the 
second half of ver. 13, though this expresses the same thing as the first half. 
— 1 ayarn tov Xpiotov] not: the love to Christ (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, 
Mosheim, Heumann, Hofmann, Maier), but : the love of Christ to men (so 
Chrysostom and most others) ; for the death of Christ floating before the 


1 §i quid gloriatur P.,id non ad ipsius, Riickert also, who in other respects takes 
sed ad Dei gloriam pertinet; si mediocria ¢é&éor. and cwdp. rightly in their pure and 
loquitur, id tribuit infirmioribus, quorum full sense, refers buty to accommodation. 
affectibus et capacitati se accommodat.” 


52 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


apostle’s mind is to him the highest act of love (Rom. v. 6, 7; Gal. ii. 20 ; 
Eph. ii. 19 ; Rom. viii. 35, 37) ; and with Paul generally (not so with John) 
the genitive of a person with ayary is always the genitivus subjecti (Rom. v. 
5, 8, vii, 35, 39 ; 2 Cor. vill. 24, xii. 18; Eph. 1.4% Phil’ a 9 also 2 
Thess. ili. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 is not-here relevant), while, when the person is 
the object of love, he expresses this by eic (Col. i. 4 ; 1 Thess. iii. 12), and 
denotes by the genitive only an abstract as object (2 Thess. ii. 10) ; in Rom. 
Xv. 30, ‘tov rvetyu. is the genitivus originis. — ovvéyer ijuac| cohibet nos, holds us 
in bounds, so as not to go beyond the limits marked by ed and iuiv, and to 
follow, possibly, affections and interests of our own. Comp. Calvin (con- 
stringere affectus nostros), Loesner, Billroth, Hofmann, Castalio : ‘‘ tenet 
nos.”’ Most, however, follow the Vulgate (urget nos): it urgesand drives us.* 
So Emmerling, Vater, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander, 
Neander, and others ; also Chrysostom (ov« adinot jovydlew pe) and Theo- 
doret (xvuprodoiueda). But contrary to the usage of the word, for ovvéyery 
always expresses that which holds together, confines, and the like, and so may 
mean press hard, but not wrge and drive (Luke xix. 48, viii. 37, al.; Phil. i. 

3; also Acts xviii. 5). (B®) Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 311 C ; Pind. Pyth. i. 
87, al.; Philo, Leg. ad Caj. p. 1016 FE; also LXX. in Biel and Schleusner, 
Thes. Ewald : it harasses us, ‘‘so that we have no rest except we do every- 
thing in it.” Thus ovvéyvec would revert to the notion of pressing hard, which 
may be a harassing (Luke xii. 50 ; Wisd. xvii. 11, and Grimm’s Handb. in 
loc.). But this is not given here by the context, as, indeed, that further de- 
velopment of the meaning does not flow from the connection. — xpivarrac 
tovro] after we have come to be of the judgment, namely, after our conversion,’ 
Gal. i. 16. This judgment contains that, in consequence of which that re- 
straining influence of the love of Christ takes place—the subjective condi- 
tion of this influence. — érz ele brép ravtwv x.t.A.]| that one for all, etc. Who 
is meant by eic, is clear from 7 dyad tT. Xpiorod, and was known to all the 
hearts of the readers ; hence there is the less ground for breaking up the 
simple sentence, and taking elc irép révtwv as in apposition : ‘‘ because He, 
one for all, died” (Hofmann). As for dru, it is simplest, although e after dr: 
is not genuine (see the critical remarks), to take it, not as because, but as 
that, corresponding, according to the usage elsewhere, to the preparatory 
rouro (Rom. ii. 8, vi. 6; 2 Cor. x. 7, 11; Eph. v. 5, al.) ; in such a way, 
however, that dpa x.7.4. is likewise included in the dependence on 6r:, and 
does not form an independent clause (in opposition to Riickert). For the 
contents of the judgment as such must lie in dpa of ravtec aréSavov, of which 
the historical fact, cic trap mavt. atéd., is only the actual presupposition serv- 
ingas its ground. The way in which the two clauses are marshalled side by 
side (without «i or because) makes the expression more lively, comp. 1 Cor. 


1 Beza: “totos possidet ac regit, ut ejus 
afflatu quasi correpti agamus omnia.”’ 

2 Not at, but affer conversion. His con- 
version took place through Christ seizing 
on him and overmastering him, and not by 
way of argument; but subsequently in him 
who had become a believer there necessa- 


rily set in the discursive exercise of reflec- 
tion, guiding the further judgment regard- 
ing the new life which he had acquired. 
This in opposition to Hofmann’s misconcep- 
tion of my explanation, as if I took xpivavras 
as identical with the conversion of the 
apostle. 


CHAP. ¥., 14, B29 


x. 17%. Hence it is to be translated : that one died for all, consequently they 
all died, i.e. consequently in this death of the one the death all was accom- 
plished, the ethical death, namely, in so far as in the case of all the ceasing 
of the fleshly life, of the life in sin (which ethical dying sets in subjectively 
through fellowship of faith with the death of Christ), is objectively, as a 
matter of fact, contained in the death of the Lord. (c*) When Christ died 
the redeeming death for all (comp. v. 21), all died, in respect of their fleshly 
life, with Him (Xpcor¢ ovveotatpopa, Gal. 11.19 3 areddvere, Col. iii. 8); this 
objective matter of fact which Paul here affirms has its subjective realization in 
the faith of the individuals, through which they have entered into that death- 
fellowship with Christ given through His death for all, so that they have 
now, by means of baptism, become ovvragévre¢ ait} (Col. ii. 12). Comp. 
Rom. vi. 4. Here’ also, as inall passages where irép is used of the atoning 
death (see on Rom. v. 6 ; Gal, iii. 18), it is not equivalent to dyri (comp. on 
ver. 21), for which it is taken by most commentators, including Flatt, 
Emmerling, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Usteri, Osiander, Gess, Baur, 
Maier, but : for the sake of, all, for their benefit, to expiate their sins (ver. 19 ; 
Rom. iii. 25). Since One has died the redeeming death for the good of all, 
so that the death of this One as idaorgpiov has come to benefit all, a// are dead, 
because otherwise the ic iép ravtwv would not be correctly put. The dying 
of Christ for the reconciliation of all necessarily presupposes that death- 
fellowship of all, for Christ could not have died effectively, for one who 
would not have died with Christ ; unbelieving, such a one, in spite of the 
sacrificial death made for all, would still be in his sins.? That ixép here 
cannot be equivalent to avri is shown particularly by ver. 15 : 76 irép abrév 
arovavévTe kai éyep&évre 3 for according to this the resurrection of Jesus 
also (since it would be quite arbitrary to refer irép airév merely to axoVavéyts) 
must have been substitutionary, which is nowhere taught, since it is rather 
the actual proof and confirmation of the atonement (see 1 Cor. xv. 17; Rom. 
iv. 25, ix. 84; Acts xiii. 87 f.; 1 Pet. i. 3 f.).—dmdp xévrwv] for all men in 
general, so that no one is excluded from the effect of his iAaorfpiov, and every 
one, so soon as he becomes a believer, attains subjectively to the enjoyment 
of this effect. This subjective realization, although in the case of those who 
refuse belief it is frustrated by their guilt, is, in the divine plan of salvation, 
destined for ald, and has already taken place in the case of believers ; hence 
Paul, who himself belonged to the latter, might justly from this his own 


salvation of all (v7ép mavtwr), 

2 Certainly the dying of Christ was the 
‘“elose of the previous sin-tainted life of 
mankind’’ (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt, 
Paul. Christol. p. 55 f.), but in so far as this 


1Comp. Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1858, p. 462 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
324 f. What Baur remarks, on the other 
hand, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 
1859, p. 241 (comp. his newt. Theol. p. 158 f.), 


that vrép denotes the ideal substitution, 7.e. 
the most intimate, immediate entering into 
the other and putting oneself in his place, 
is not the contents of the idea of the prep- 
osition, but that of the idea of sacrifice, un- 
der which the death of Jesus is ranked, in 
the consciousness of the apostle and his 
readers, aS an ‘Aaorypiov, offered for the 


dying blotted out the guilt of mankind, 
This expiation becomes appropriated by in- 
dividuals through faith, and out of faith 
there grows the new life of sanctification, 
in which he who has died ethically with 
Christ in faith is ethically risen with Him 
and lives to God. 


530 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


standpoint in the oi rdvrec aréVavov, without meaning by zévrec only believers 
(in opposition to my previous explanation), prove the restraining influence of 
the love of Christ, which he had himself experienced. —oi mdvrec| with the 
article ; for it applies to all those of whom irép x. azé3. was just said. — 
arédavov| not : they are to die (Thomas, Grotius, Estius, Nésselt, and others) ; 
not: they were subjected to death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, 
and others ; Vatablus: ‘‘ morte digni’’) ; nor: they must have died (Ewald) ; 
nor : ‘‘‘ it is just as good as if they had died” (Calovius, Flatt, and others) : 
’ but : “mors facta in morte Christi” (Bengel), they died, which is to be con- 
sidered as a real fact, objectively contained in the fact of the death of Jesus, 
and subjectively accomplished in the consciousness of individuals through 
faith. | 

Ver. 15. Continuation or second part of the judgment, in consequence of 
which the love of Christ ovvéyer juac. —irép has the emphasis, whereas in 
ver. 14 the stress lay on cic and révtwv. ‘* And (that) He died for the benefit 
of all (with the purpose) that (because otherwise this irép would be frustra- 
ted) the living should no more (as before the death they had died with Christ) 
live to themselves, i.e. dedicate their life to selfish ends, but,” etc. Comp. 
Rom. xiv. 7 ff. — oi Cévrec] Paul might also have said oi ravte¢ ; but of Cavrec 
is purposely chosen with retrospective reference to oi ravtec aréSavorv, and 
that as subject (the living), not as apposition (as the living, Hofmann), in 
which view the life meant is held to be the earthly one, which Jesus left 
when He died ; but this would furnish only a superfluous and unmeaning 
addition (it is otherwise at iv. 11), and so also with de Wette’s interpreta- 
tion : so long as we live. No ; it is the life, which has followed on the aréd- 
avov. He, namely, who has died with Christ is alive from death, as Christ 
Himself has died and become alive (Rom. xiv. 9); He who has become oiy- 
gvtoc With His death, is so also with His resurrection (Rom. vi. 5). Thus 
the dead are necessarily the Cévrec, by sharing ethically the same fate with 
Christ, Gal. ii. 19 f. Their ¢a# is, consequently, doubtless in substance the 
life of regeneration (Erasmus, Beza, Flatt, and others); it is not, however, 
regarded under this form of conception, but as kaérn¢ Cope (Rom. vi. 4), 
out of death. Comp. Rom. vi. 8-11. Riickert, in accordance with his in- 
correct taking of izép in the sense of avri (see on ver. 14), explains : ‘‘ those, 
for whom He has died, on whom, therefore, death has no more claims.” — 
kai éyepSévte] is correlative to the oi Cévtec, in so far as these are just the 
living out of death, whose life is to belong to the Living One ; and izép 
aivTav belongs also to éyep’., since Christ is raised dvd tHv dixaiwowy yudov (Rom. 
1v. 25). Comp. on Phil. iii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 17.—Note, further, that Paul in 
ver. 15 writes in the third person (he does not say we), because he lays down 
the whole judgment beginning with 67: as the great, universally valid and 
fundamental doctrine for the collective Christian life, that he may then in 
ver. 16 let himself emerge in the jyeic. He would not have written differently 
even if he had meant by ayary +. Xpiotot his love to the Lord (in opposition 
to Hofmann). Much that is significant is implied in this doctrinal, objec- 
tive form of confession. _ 

Ver. 16. Inference from vv. 14 and 15 opposed to the hostile way of 


CHAP. V., 15. 531 


judging of his opponents (comp. ver. 18). Hence it is with us quite other- 
wise than with our opponents, who judge regarding others xara capka : we 
know henceforth no one according to flesh-standard. Since all, namely, have 
(ethically) died, and every one is destined to live only to Christ, not to him- 
self, our knowing of others must be wholly independent of what they are 
kata odpxa. Accordingly, the connection of thought between ver. 16 and 
vy. 14 and 15 demands that we take xara cdpxa here not as subjective stand- 
ard of the oidayev, so that we should have to explain it: according to 
merely human knowledge, without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit 
(comp. 1. 17; 1 Cor. i. 26): ‘‘as one might know Him in a way natural to 
man” (Hofmann, Osiander, and, earlier, Lyra, Calovius, and others ; comp. 
also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 69), but as objective standard (comp. xi. 
- 18; John viii. 15; Phil. ili. 4), so that eidévar teva kata cdpxa means : to 
know any one according to merely human appearance, to know him in sucha way, 
that he is judged by what he is in virtue of his natural, material form of 
existence, and not by what he is xara rvetpa, as a Christian, as Kavv7 xriore (ver. 
17). He who knows no one «xara cdpxa has entirely left out of account, e.g. 
in the Jew, his Jewish origin ; in the rich man, his riches ; in the scholar, 
his learning ; in the slave, his bondage ; and so forth (comp. Gal. iii. 28). 
Comp. Bengel : ‘‘secundum carnem : secundum statum veterem ex nobili- 
tate, divitiis, opibus, sapientia.” It is inaccurate to say that this interpre- 
tation requires the article before cadpxa (Osiander). It might be used, but 
was not necessary, any more than at Phil. iii. 3 ff., Rom. i. 3, ix. 5, al., 
where odpé everywhere, without the article, denotes the objective relation. 
— music| 1.2. we on our part, as opposed to the adversaries who judge xara 
odpxa. The taking the plural as general embracing others (Billroth, by way 
of suggestion, Schenkel, de Wette), has against it the evidently antithetic 
emphasis of the pronoun ; it is only with the further inference in ver. 17 
that the discourse becomes general. — a6 rot viv] after the present time, t.¢. 
after our present (Christian) relation, and with it also the xpivavrac x.7.A., 
has begun. Paul has avd rov viv only here. Beyond this Luke alone in the 
N. T. has it. — oidayev] not aestemamus (Grotius, Estius, and others, includ- 
ing Emmerling and Flatt), but novimus ; no one is to us known xara odpka 5 
we know nothing of him according to sucha standard. Comp. on eidévat 
ovdéva or ovdév in the sense of complete separation, 1 Cor. ii. 2. oida is re- 
lated to éyvwxa, cognovi, as its lasting sequel: scio, quis et qualis sit. — e Kai 
éyvokauev kK. o. XpioTov «.t.A.]| apologetic application of the assertion just 
made, ard Tov viv ovdéva oidauev x. o. This remark is added without dé (see 
the critical remarks), which is accounted for by the impetuous liveliness of 
the representation. Jf even (as I herewith grant to my opponents, see Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 832) the case has occurred that we have known Christ accord- 
ing to flesh-standard, this knowing of Him now exists with us no longer. The 
emphasis of this concessive clause lies on the praeterite éyvéxayev, which op- 
poses the past to the present relation (oidayev, and see the following y.véoxo- 
uev). Therefore Xpioréy is not placed immediately after ei xai, for Paul 
wishes to express that in the past it has been otherwise than now ; that for- 
merly the yevdoxerv x. cdpxa had certainly occurred in his case, and that in ref- 


532 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

erence to Christ. This in opposition to the usual interpretation, according to 
which Xpcoréy is invested with the chief emphasis. Soe.g. Billroth: ‘if we 
once regarded even Christ Himself in a fleshly manner, if we quite misjudged 
Him and His kingdom ;” Beyschlag similarly : ‘‘even with Christ I make no 
exception,” etc. Ritickert, without any reason whatever, conjectures that 
Paul erroneously inserted Xpioréy, or perhaps did not write it at all. The 
right interpretation is found in Osiander, Ewald, Kling, also substantially in 
Hofmann, who, however, would attach ei cat éyvixauev x.7.A. tO ard Tov viv. . 
capxa, and thus separate it only by a comma,—a course by which, owing to the 
following contrast aA2a x.r.4., the sentence is without sufficient ground made 
more disjointed.—Paul had known Christ card ocdpxa, so long as the merely 
human individuality of Christ, His lower, earthly appearance (comp. Chrys- 
ostom and Theodoret), was the limit of his knowledge of Him. At the 
time when he himself was still a zealot against Christ, and His persecutor, 
he knew Him as a mere man, as a common Jew, not as Messiah, not as the 
Son of God; as one justly persecuted and crucified, not as the sinless 
Reconciler and the transfigured Lord of glory, etc. It was quite different, 
however, since God had revealed His Son in Paul (Gal. i. 16), whereby he 
had learned to know Christ according to His true, higher, spiritual nature 
(xara rvedua, Rom. i. 4). Comp. also Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. und Petr. p. 
429, who, however, refers the Xpioréy, which denotes the entire historical 
person of the God-man, only to the heavenly, purely pneumatic personality 
of the Lord, which had been pre-existent and in this sense was re-established 
by the resurrection. Klépper, p. 66, has substantially the right view: the 
earthly, human appearance of Christ according to its national, legal, and 
particular limitation. The Judaistic conception of the Messianic idea was 
the subjective ground of the former erroneous knowledge of Christ, but it is » 
not on that account to be explained with many (Luther, see his gloss, Ben- 
gel, Riickert, and others): according to Jewish ideas of the Messiah ; for, ac- 
cording to what precedes, «. o. must be the objective standard of the éyvéxa- 
nev. In that case Xporéy cannot be appellative, the Messiah (especially 
Baur, I. p. 304, ed. 2, and Neander, I. p. 142 f.), but only nomen proprium, 
as the following ¢i tu¢ év Xpioré shows. Olshausen, who rightly, as to sub- 
stance, refers x. co. to the life of Christ before His resurrection, deduces, 
however, from ¢ kai éyvéx. that Paul even before his conversion had seen 
Christ in his visits to Jerusalem, which Beyschlag also, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 
1864, p. 248, and 1865, p. 266, gathers from our passage and explains it 





1 According to Estius, the meaning is 
taken to be: ‘‘If we once held it as some- 
thing great to be fellow-countrymen and 
kinsmen of Christ.””> But the words do not 
convey this. Similarly also Wetstein, who 
makes the apostle, in opposition to the (al- 
leged) boasting of the false apostles that 
they were kinsmen and hearers of Christ, 
maintain, “ cognationem solam nihil pro- 
desse ;” et Christum non humilem essé, as on 
earth, sed exaltatuin super omnes. Comp. 


Hammond, and also Storr, Opuse. II. p. 252, 
according to whom Paul refers to such, 
‘qui praeter externa ornamenta et Judai- 
cam originen et pristinam illam suam cum 
apostolis Christo familiaribus conjunctionem 
nihil haberent, quo magnifice gloriari pos- 
sent.”? An allusion to the alleged spiritual- 
ism of the Christine party, who had re- 
proached the apostle with a fleshly concep- 
tion of Christ (Schenkel, Goldhorn), is arbi- 
trarily assumed. 


CHAP. v., 17. 533 


accordingly, and Ewald, Gresch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 868, ed. 8, thinks cred- 
ible. This is in itself possible (though nowhere testified), but does not 
follow from our passage ; for éyvdé«., in fact, by no means presupposes the 
having seen, but refers to the knowledge of Christ obtained by colloquial in- 
tercourse, and determined by the Pharisaic fundamental point of view,—a 
knowledge which Paul before his conversion had derived from his historical 
acquaintance with Christ’s earthly station, influence as a teacher, and fate, 
as known to all.’ Besides, the interpretation of a personal acquaintance 
with Christ would be quite unsuitable to the following aA2d viv x.r.A. It 
would be at variance with the context. See also Klépper, p. 55 ff. Accord- 
ing to de Wette, the sense is: ‘‘not yet to have so known Christ as, with a 
renouncing of one’s own fleshly selfishness, to live to Him alone,” ver. 15. 
But in this way there would result for xara cdpxa the sense of the subjective 
standard (against which see above); further, the signification of «ard o. 
would not be the same for the two parts of the verse, since in the second 
part it would affirm more (namely, according to fleshly selfishness, without 
living to Him alone); lastly, this having known Christ would not suit the 
time before the conversion of the apostle, to which it nevertheless applies, 
because at this time he was even persecutor of Christ. And this he was, 
just because he knew him xara odpxa (taken in ow sense), which erroneous 
form of having known ceased only when God azmexdAvwe tov vidv avTod 
év aiT@ (Gal. i. 16). While -various expositors fail to give to it a clear and 
definite interpretation,’ others have explained it in the linguistically errone- 
ous sense of a merely hypothetical possibility. Thus Erasmus: ‘‘ Nec est, 
quod nos posteriores apostolos quisquam hoc nomine minoris faciat, quod 
Christum mortali corpore in terris versantem non novimus, quando etiam, 
si contigisset novisse, nunc eam notitiam, quae obstabat spiritui, deposuisse- 
mus, et spiritualem factum spiritualiter amaremus ;” so in the main also 
Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt. Fora synopsis of the various old explana- 
tions, from Faustus the Manichaean (who proved from our passage that 
Christ had no fleshly body) downward, see Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 463 ff. — 
aad] in the apodosis, see on iv. 16. — yevdoxouer| 8c. Kata odpKa Xpiordv. 

Ver. 17. Inference from ver. 16. If, namely, the state of matters is such 
as is stated in ver. 16, that now we no longer know any one as respects his 
human appearance, and even a knowledge of Christ of that nature, once 
cherished, no longer exists with us, it follows that the adherents of Christ, who 
are raised above such a knowledge of Christ after a mere sensuous standard, 
are quite other than they were before ; the Christian is a new creature, to whom 
~ the standard xara capxa is no longer suitable. The apostle might have con- 
tinued with ydp instead of wore ; in which case he would have assigned as 
ground of the changed knowledge the changed quality of the objects of 


1 Certainly to him also had the cross been 2 Hofmann, ¢é.g., describes the knowing 
a stumbling-block, since, according to the of Christ cata odpxa as of such a nature, 
Jewish conception, the Messiah was not to that it accommodated itself to the habit of 
die at all (John xii. 34); but we must not, the natural man, and therefore Christ was 
with Theodoret; limit cata capxa to the known only in so far as He was the object of 
madytov cana Of Christ. such knowledge. 


534 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

knowledge. He might also, with just as much logical accuracy, infer, from 
the fact of the knowledge being no longer xara odpxa, that the objects of 
knowledge could no longer be the old ones, to which the old way of know- 
ing them would still be applicable, but that they must be found in a quality 
wholly new. He argues not ez causa, but ad causam. The former he would 
have done with ydp, the latter he does with ore (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
objection). —év Xpiord| a Christian ; for through faith Christ is the element 
in which we live and move. — kaw krioic] for the pre-Christian condition, 
spiritual and moral, is abolished and done away by God through the union 
of man with Christ (ver. 18 ; Eph. ii. 10, iv. 21 ; Col. iii. 9, 10 ; Rom. vi. 


6), and the spiritual nature and life of the believer are constituted quite | 


anew (comp. vv. 14, 15), so that Christ Himself lives in him (Gal. ii. 20) 
through His Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.). See on Gal. vi. 15. The form of the 
expression (its idea is not different from the radcyyevecia, Tit. iii. 5 ; John 
lili. 83; James i. 18) is Rabbinical ; for the Rabbins also regarded the man 
converted to Judaism as NWW M13. See Schoettgen, Hor. I. pp. 328, 
704 f., and Wetstein. —ré apyaia rapySev x.7.4.] Epexegesis of kaw? xriore ; 
the old, the pre-Christian nature and life, the pre-Christian spiritual consti- 
tution of man, is passed away ; behold the whole—the whole state of man’s 
personal life—has become new. There is too slight a resemblance for us to 
assume for certain a reminiscence of Isa. xliii. 18 f., or Isa. Ixv. 17; as even 
Chrysostom and his followers give no hint of such an echo. By the idot of 
vivid realization, and introduced without connecting particle (‘‘ demonstra- 
tivum rei presentis,” Bengel ; comp. vi. 9), as well as by the emphatically 
prefixed yéyove (comp. xii. 11), a certain element of triwmph is brought into 
the representation. — The division, according to which the protasis is made 
to go on to kriowe (Vulgate : ‘‘si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura ;” or ri¢ 
is taken as masculine: ‘‘si quis ergo mecum est in Christo regeneratus,” 
Cornelius 4 Lapide), has against it the fact, that in that case the apodosis 
would contain nothing else than was in the protasis ; besides, the prefixing 
of év X. would not be adequately accounted for. 

Ver. 18. On vv. 18-21, see appropriate remarks in Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
p. 279 f. —ra 02 rdvra] leading on from the yéyove cava ra 7. to the supreme 
source of this change ; hence, contextually, ra rdyra is nothing else than : 
the whole that has become new. Everything, in which the new state of the 
Christian consists, proceeds from God ; and now by tov xaraAAdEavtog . . . 
KatadAayye is specified the mode in which God has set it into operation, name- 
ly, by His having reconciled us with Himself through Christ, and entrusted 
to the apostle and his fellow-labourers the ministry of reconciliation. The 
reconciliation has taken place with reference to all humanity (hence kécpov, 


1 Not only inreference to sinis the old and will. Chrysostom and Theophylact 


passed away and everything become new 
(Theodoret: 1d Tis amaptias amexdvaa- 
peda ynpas), but also—certainly, however, 
in consequence of the reconciliation appro- 
priated in faith—in relation to the knowl- 
edge and consciousness of salvation, as 
well as to the whole tendency of disposition 


unsuitably mix up objective Judaism .as 
also included, and in doing so the latter 
arbitrarily specializes ra mavra: avtTi Tov 
vomov evayyéAtov: avtTi ‘Iepovaeadynu ovpavds* 
avTi vaod Td €oUTEPOY TOD KaTATETATMATOS EV DH 
Tplas' GVTL TEPLTOKS BATTLTMG K.T.A, 


/ 


% 


CHAP... V., 18. 535 


ver. 19) ; but Paul uses jac in the person of believers, as those who have ev- 
perienced the reconciliation of the world in its subjective realization. This 
in opposition to Leun, Ewald, Riickert, Hofmann, who refer it to the apos- 
tle and his fellow-workers, Hofmann, indeed, fincing nothing else affirmed 
than the conversion, in so far as it was, ‘‘a change of his relation, and not of 
his conduct, towards God.” And that juiv does not apply to men in general 
(Olshausen), but to Paul and the rest of the apostolic teachers, is clear from év 
juiv, ver. 19, which is evidently (seeing that Paul has not written éyv airoic) 
distinguished by a special reference from «éoyo¢ ; besides, the inference, ver. 
20, ixép Xpiorod ody xpecf., manifestly presuppoges the special reference of 
quiv and év juiv in vv. 18, 19. This also in opposition to Héfling. Azirchen- 
verf. P. 225, ed. 3. —rod KxataAAdéavtoc x.t.A.| who has reconciled us with Him- 
self through Christ. For men were, by means of their uneffaced sin, burden- 
ed with God’s holy wrath, éy3poi deov (Rom. v. 10, xi. 28; Eph. ii. 16 ; 
comp. Col. i. 20 f.), Deo invisi ; but through God’s causing Christ to die as 


- Waorhpiov,’ He.accomplished the effacing of their sins, and by this, therefore, 


God’s wrath ceased. The same thought is contained in Rom. v. 10, only 
expressed in a passive form. Tittmann’s distinction between dada, and 
katara. (Synon. p. 102) is of no value ; see on Rom. v. 10, and Fritzsche, ad 
Lom. I. p. 276 ff. — rv daxov. tig xatarr.| the ministry, which is devoted to 
reconciliation, which is the means of reconciliation for men, inasmuch as 
through this ministry reconciliation is preached to them, and they are 
brought unto faith on the iAaorfpiov Jesus, which faith is the causa appre- 
hendens of the reconciliation, Rom. ili. 25 ; comp. draxovia tH¢ dixaoobvye, il. 
9. The opposite : dvak. tH¢ Kataxpicewc, ill. 9. 


Remarx.—Riickert erroneously explains the reconciliation from the active 
enmity of men against God. God, according to his view, caused Christ to die 
for men, that He might, no doubt, on the one hand, be able to accomplish the 
py Aoyifec$ac of their sins ; but through this manifest proof of His love He 
filled men with thankfulness, and gave them encouragement to accomplish the 
reconciliation on their side also, and so (as was Baur’s opinion also) to give up 
their enmity towards God. And thus strictly regarded, the death of Jesus, ac- 
cording to Paul, has not so much reconciled humanity with God, as it has re- 


“moved the obstacles to the’reconciliation, and given a stimulus to the heart to 


enter into the only right and friendly relation with God.—No, the death of 
Jesus operated as iAaor#piov (Rom. iii. 25 ; Gal. iii. 13), consequently as effac- 
ing God's holy enmity (Rom. xi. 28), the dpy?) @c0v, so that He now did not im- 
pute to men their sins (ver. 19), and in this way, actu forensi, reconciled them 
with Himself (ver. 21), while simple faith is the subjective condition of appro- 
priation on the part of men. Comp. on Col. i. 21. The thankfulness, the new 
courage, the holy life, etc., are only a consequence of the reconciliation appro- 
priated in faith, not a part of it. Comp. Rom. v. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., viii. 3, 4, al. 
This, at the same time, in opposition to the doctrine of reconciliation set 
forth by Hofmann (see on Rom. iii. 25), who at our passage calls in question 
the view that tod kataAAdéavto¢ x,.7,A. expresses an act of God, which takes 


14.¢, &a Xp. Comp. ver. 21. Pelagius erroneously adds: ‘‘ per Christi doctrinam pariter 
et exemplum,” 7 


536 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


place once for allin and with the history of Christ, and defines the notion of 
xaTaaA, (in which 7jud¢ is held to apply to Paul, in whom God had wrought 
faith), as amounting to this, that God through Christ, «‘whom He Himself gives 
and ordains for the purpose, makes sin cease for Him to be the cause of wrath 
against the sinner.’ Comp. on the clear and correct notion of reconciliation, 
according to our passage, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 325. 


Ver. 19. Confirmatory elucidation of the previous éx tov beov, Tod 


KatadAdgavtoc . . . KataAAayje. ‘‘I have reason for saying, from God, who 
has reconciled us, ete., because, indeed, God in Christ reconciled the world with 
Himself,” etc. The recurrence of the same leading expressions, which were 
used in ver. 18, gives to this elucidation a solemn emphasis. The Ged¢ em- 
phatically prefixed, however, looking back to é« rod veov in ver. 18, shows 
that the point is not a description of the karaAAayy (Camerarius, Wolf, 
Estius, Billroth, and others), or of the diaxovia tHe xataAAayge (Grotius, Riick- 
ert), but the divine self-activity in Christ’s reconciling work and in the 
bestowal of the office of reconciliation. The two participial clauses, 7) 
AoyCouevoc x.7.A. and Kai Géuevog x.7.A., Stand related to Geog ww év X. Kop. 
KaTaaa. éavt. argumentatively, so that the words kai Géwevog év juiv K.T.A., 
which serve to elucidate kai dévro¢ juiv x.7.2., ver. 18, are not co-ordinated to 
the karaAAdoowv (as one might expect from ver. 18), but are subordinated to 
it,—a change in the form of connecting the conceptions, which cannot sur- 
prise us in the case of Paul when we consider his free and lively variety in 
the mode of linking together his thoughts. — o¢ ot Gedc qv ev X. Kéom. Katara. 
éavt@| because, indeed, Godin Christ was reconciling the world with Himself. On 
wc bt,’ utpote quod (to be analyzed : as it is the case, because), see Winer, p. 
574 [E.T. 771]. The qv xatadAdcowv should go together (see already Chrys- 
ostom), and is more emphatic than the simple imperfect. Paul wishes, 
namely, to affirm of God, not simply what He did (xarfAAacce), but in what 
activity He was; in the person and work of Christ (év Xpio7ré) God was in 
world-reconciling activity. The imperfect receives from the context the defi- 
nite temporal reference : when Christ died the death of reconciliation, with 
which took place that very xaradAdEavtoc, ver. 18. See, especially, Rom. iii. 
24 f., v. 10. Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calo- 
vius, Bengel, and many others, including Riickert, Osiander, Neander, 
connect jv év Xpioro together : God was in Christ, while reconciling the world 
with Himself. 'This would only be possible in the event of the two follow- 
ing participial clauses expressing the mode of reconciliation, which, however, 
on account of the second clause (kai Séuevocg év juiv t.x.A.), cannot be the 
case ; they must, on the contrary, contain the conjirmation of Sede qv év X. 
kéou. KataAd. éavtd. According to their contents, however, they do not at 
all confirm the fact that God was in Christ, but the fact that God in Christ 
was reconciling the world ; hence it is at variance with the context to make 


1 Jn xi. 21, the ore in ws ore does not speci- tial and consequently more emphatic intro- 
fy a reason, but introduces the contents of duction of the ground than a simple or: or 
Aé€yw. In 2 Thess. ii. 2, also, ws ore is like yap would have been. It makes us linger 
that. At our passage it is: in measure of the more over the confirmatory ground assign- 
fact, that God was, etc.,—a more circumstan- ed. 


CHAP? '¥,, 19. 537 
the connection 7 év Xpioré. Theodoret was right in denying expressly this 
connection. Hofmann, after abandoning his earlier (in the Schriftbew. II. 
1, p. 326) misinterpretation (see in opposition to it my fourth edition, p. 
147), now explains it by referring é¢ érz «.r.A. merely to x. dévTo¢ juiv K.T.A. : 
because He was a God, who in Christ was reconciling to Himself a world in its 
sinful condition without imputation of its sins, and who had laid the word of 
reconciliation on him the apostle.” A new misinterpretation. For, first, the 
qualitative expression ‘‘a God,” which is held to be predicative, would not 
only have been quite superfluous (Paul would have had to write merely é¢ 
ért WV K.T.A.), but also quite unsuitable, since there is no contrast with other 
gods; secondly, the relative tense 7» must apply to the time in which what 
is said in dévto¢c juiv x.t.A. took place (in the sense, therefore : because he 
was at that time a God, who was reconciling), which would furnish an ab- 
surd thought, because, when Paul became an apostle, the reconciliation of 
the world had been long accomplished : thirdly, %éuevog would be a parti- 
‘ciple logically incorrect, because what it affirms followed on the caraAAdoouv ; 
lastly, 7) Aoy:féu. cannot be taken in the sense of ‘‘ without imputation,” 
since a reconciliation with imputation of sins is unthinkable. — xéopuov] not a 
world, but the world, even without the article (Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153}), 
as Gal. vi. 14 ; Rom. iv. 13. It applies to the whole human race, not pos- 
sibly (in opposition to Augustine, Lyra, Beza, Cajetanus, Estius) merely to 
those predestinated. The reconciliation of all men took place objectively 
through Christ’s death, although the subjective appropriation of it is con- 
ditioned by the faith of the individual.’ — py AoyiCouevoc aitoic x.7.A.] since 
He does not reckon (present) to them their sins, and has deposited (aorist) in us 
the word of reconciliation. The former is the altered judicial relation, into 
which God has entered: and in which He stands to the sins of men ; the 
latter is the measure adopted by God, by means of which the former is 
made known to men. From both it is evident that God in Christ recon- 
ciled the world with Himself ; otherwise He would neither have left the 
sins of men without imputation, nor have imparted to the apostolic teach- 
ers the word of reconciliation that they might preach it. If, as is wswally 
done, the participial definition 7 Aoy:féuevoc is taken in the imperfect sense 
(Ewald takes it rightly in a present sense) as a more precise explanation of 
the modus of the reconciliation, there arises the insoluble difficulty that 
Séuevoc év juiv also would have to be so viewed, and to be taken conse- 
quently as an element of the reconciliation, which is impossible, since it 
expresses what God has done after the work of reconciliation, in order to 
appropriate it to men. Véuevoc, namely, cannot be connected with Vedc jv, 
against which the aorist participle is itself decisive ; and itis quite arbitrary to 
assume (with Billroth and Olshausen) a deviation from the construction, so 


1The question whether and how Paul re- 
garded the reconciliation of those who 
died before the tAagrypiov of Christ, and 
were not justified like Abraham, remains 
unanswered, since he nowhere explains 
himself on the point, and since the dead 


are not included in the notion of kécpos. 
Still, Rom. x. 7,. Phil. ii. 10 presuppose the 
descent of Christ into Hades, which is the 
necessary correlative of the resurrection 
éx vexpov, and it is expressly taught by Paul 
in Eph. iv. 9. 


538 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


that Paul should have written é¥ero instead of Jéuevoc (comp. Vulgate, Cal- 
vin and many others, who translate it without ceremony : et posit). — év juiv] 
The doctrine of reconciliation (comp. on the genitive, 1 Cor. i. 18; Acts 
xx. 82) which is to be preached, is regarded as something deposited in the 
souls of the preachers for further communication : ‘‘ sicut interpreti commit- 
titur quid loqui debeat,” Bengel. Comp. on év #piv, which is not to be 
taken as among us, the Veivai év dpeci, ev Suu@, év or7Se_ecat. 

Ver. 20. Hor Christ, therefore, we administer the office of ambassador, just as 
if God exhorted through us. This double element of the dignity of the high 
calling follows from the previous Péuevog év juiv t. Ady. THE KaTaAA. Tf, name- 
ly, it is the word of reconciliation which is committed to us, then in our em- 
bassy we conduct Christ’s cause (izép X. xpeoB.), seeing that the reconcilia- 
tion‘has taken place through Christ.; and because God has entrusted to us 
this work, our exhortation is to be regarded as taking place by God through 
us (6¢ T. 0. mapaxad. Ov’ iu.) On txép with rpeof. in the sense specified, 
comp. Eph. vi. 20 and the passages in Wetstein and Kypke. The opposite : 
mpeoB. Kata Trvoc, Dem. 400, 12. The usual interpretation, vice et loco Christi, 
which is rightly abandoned even by Hofmann, and is defended on the part 
of Baur by mere subtlety, runs counter to the context ; for this sense must 
have followed (oiv) from what precedes, which, however, is not the case, 
If the notion of representation were to be inferred from what precedes, it 
could only furnish us with a irép deov. — Observe the parallel correlation of 
' Christ and God in the two parts of the verse. The connecting of d¢ row 

Veo rapax. Ov ju. With dedueba bxrép X. (Hofmann) would only disturb this 
symmetry without due ground. — dedueba irép Xpiorod «.7.4.] specification 
of the contents of the zpeoeia, and that in the form of apostolic humility 
and love : we pray for Christ, in His interest, in order that we may not, in 
your case, miss the aim of His divine work of reconciliation : be ye recon- 
ciled to God ; do not, by refusing faith, frustrate the work of reconciliation 
in your case, but through your faith bring about that the objectively ac- 
complished reconciliation may be accomplished subjectively in you. Riickert 
wrongly holds’ that the second aorist passive cannot have a passive mean- 
ing and signifies only to reconcile oneself (see, on the contrary, Rom. v. 10 ; 
Col. i. 21)’; that Paul demands the putting away of the gpdvaua tic capkéc, 
and the putting on of the ¢pdvyua tov rvebwaroc ; and that so man reconciles 
himself with God. In this view, the moral immediate consequence of the 
appropriation of the reconciliation through faith is confounded with this ap- 
propriation itself. The reconciliation is necessarily passive ; man cannot rec- 
oncile himself, but is able only to become by means of faith a partaker of the 
reconciliation which has been effected on the divine side ; he can only de- 
come reconciled, which on his side cannot take place without faith, but 7s ez- 
perienced in faith. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who says that they 
are to make their peace with God, in which case what the person so sum- 
‘moned has to do is made to consist in this, that he complies with the sum- 
mons and prays God to extend to him also the effect, which the mediation 


1 See against this, also Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 302 f. 


CHAP, ‘Vay 2 539 


constituted by God Himself exercises on the relation of sinful man toward 
Him. — The subject of katadAdynre is all those, to whom the loving summons 
of the gospel goes forth ; consequently those not yet reconciled, 7.e. the un- 
believing, who, however, are to be brought, through Christ’s ambassadors, to 
appropriate the reconciliation. The guotidiana remissio which is promised 
to Christians (Calvin) is not meant, but the cataAAdyyre is fulfilled by those 
who, hitherto still standing aloof from the reconciliation, believingly ac- 
cept the Adyoc 7. KataArayfc sent to them.’ 

Ver. 21. This is not the other side of the apostolic preaching (one side of 
it being the previous prayer), for this must logically have preceded the 
prayer (in opposition to Hofmann) ; but the znducing motive, belonging to 
the deduefa x.7.A., for complying with the xaraar. tO Sed, by holding forth 
' what has been done on God’s side in order to justify men. This weighty 
motive emerges without ydp, and is all the more urgent. — tov py yvrdvra 
duapr.| description of sinlessness (rdov abtodicacocbyyv évta, Chrysostom) ; for 
sin had not become known experimentally to the moral consciousness of Jesus ; 
it was to Him, because non-existent in Him, a thing unknown from His 
own experience. This was the necessary postwlate for His accomplish- 
ing the work of reconciliation. —The v4 with the participle gives at all 
events a subjective negation ; yet it may be doubtful whether it means the 
judgment of God (Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, Winer) or that of the 
Christian consciousness (so Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 279 : ‘quem talem vi- 
rum mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam non habuerit’’). The former is 
to be preferred, because it makes the motive, which is given in ver. 21, ap- 
pear stronger. The sinlessness of Jesus was present to the consciousness of 
God, when He made Him to be sin.’ Riickert, quite without ground, gives 
up any explanation of the force of w# by erroneously remarking that between 
the article and the participle w4 always appears, never ov. See e.g. from the 
N. T., Rom. ix. 25 ; Gal, iv. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 10; Eph. v. 4; and from pro- 
fane authors, Plat. Rep. p. 427 E: 70 oby ebpyuévov, Plut. de garrul. p. 98, 
ed Hutt. : mpod¢ rode ovk axobovrac, Arist. Hecl. 187: 6 0 ob AaBdv, Lucian, 
Charid. 14 : dupyotpevoe ra ob bvta, adv. Ind. 5, and many other passages. — 
imép quar] for our benefit (more precise explanation : iva jueic «.7.A.), is em- 
phatically prefixed as that, in which lies mainly the motive for fulfilling the 
prayer in ver. 20; hence also jueic is afterwards repeated. Regarding irép, 
which no more means instead here than it does in Gal. iii. 13 (in opposition 
to Osiander, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 134, and older commentators), see 
on Rom. v. 6. The thought of substitution is only introduced by what fol- 
lows. (E°) — duaptiav éroinoe| abstractum pro conereto (comp. Ajpoc, bA€Opoc, 
and the like in the classic writers, Kiihner, II. p. 26), denoting more strongly 
that which God made Him to be (Dissen, ad Pind. pp. 145, 476), and éroince 
expresses the setting up of the state, in which Christ was actually exhibited 
by God as the coneretum of duapria, aS duaptwrdc, in being subjected by Him 
to suffer the punishment of death ;* comp. kardépa, Gal. iii. 18. Holsten, 


1 Thereby is completed in their case the 2 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 
task of the apostolic ministry, which is con- 100. 
tained in the padntevcare, Matt. xxviii. 19. 3 It isto be ncted, however, that azaprtiav, 


540 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

2. Hoang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 487, thinks of Christ’s having with His incarna- 
tion received also the principle of sin, although He remained without rapd- 
Baow. But this is not contained even in Rom. vill. 3; in the present pas- 
sage it can only be imported at variance with the words (du. éroincev), and the 
distinction between duapria and rapdBacce 18 quite foreign to the passage. 
Even the view, that the death of Jesus has its significance essentially in the 
fact that it is a doing away of the definite fleshly quality (Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. 
Christol. p. 83 ff.), does not fully meet the sacrificial conception of the apos- 
tle, which is not to be explained away. For, taking dwapriav as sin-offering 
(OWN, NXYM), with Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Eras- 
mus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Hammond, Wolf, Michaelis, 
Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and others,’ there is no sure basis laid even in the 
language of the LXX. (Lev. vi. 25, 30, v. 9 ; Num. viii. 8) ; it is at vari- 
ance with the constant usage of the N. T., and here, moreover, especially at 
variance with the previous dyapr. — yevdoueba] aorist (see the critical remarks), 
without reference to the relation of time. The present of the Recepta would 
denote that the coming of the jueic to be dtxavoobvy (to be dixacoc) still con- 
tinues with the progress of the conversions to Christ. Comp. Stallbaum, 
ad Crit. p. 43 B: ‘id, quod propositum fuit, nondum perfectum et trans- 
actum est, sed adhuc durare cogitatur ;” see also Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
850. — dixarocbvn Seov| i.e. gustified by God. See on Rom. i. 17. Not thank- 
offering (Michaelis, Schulz) ; not an offering just before God, well-pleasing 
to Him, but as dwped Seot (Rom. v. 17), the opposite of all idia dixacoctvy 
(Rom. x. 3). They who withstand that apostolic prayer of ver. 20 are then 
those, who 77 Sixavootvy tov Geov oby bretaynoav, Rom. x. 3.— év avr] for in 
Christ, namely, in His death of reconciliation (Rom. iii. 25), as causa me7i- 
toria, our being made righteous has its originating ground. 


point of view of experience befalling Him, 
evil, or the like, but only under that of guil¢- 


just like xarapa, Gal. iii. 13, necessarily in- 
cludes in itself the notion of guilt ; further, 


that the guilt of which Christ, made to be sin 
and a curse by God, appears as bearer, was 
not His own (pH yvovta auapriav), and that 
hence the guilt of men, who through His 
death were to be justified by God, was trans- 
Serred to Him; consequently the justifica- 
tion of men isimputative. This at the same 
time in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
II. 1, p. 829, according to whom (comp. his 
explanation at our passage) Paul is held 
merely to express that God has allowed sin 
to realize itself in Christ, as befalling Him, 
while it was not in Him as conduct. Cer- 
tainly it was not in Him as conduct, but it 
lay upon Him as the guilt of mento be aton- 
ed for through His sacrifice, Rom. ili. 25; 
Coligi. 14% Heboaxy 285s Petoit.ed syd obn i. 
29, al. ; for which reason His suffering finds 
itself scripturally regarded not under the 


atoning and penal suffering. Comp. 1 John 
liao 

1This interpretation is preferred by 
Ritsch] in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1863, p. 249. 
for the special reason that, according to the 
ordinary interpretation, there is an incon- 
gruity between the end aimed at (actual 
righteousness of God) and the means (appear- 
ing as asinner). But this difficulty is ob- 
viated by observing that Christ is conceived 
by the apostle as in reality bearer of the 
divine xarépa, and His death as mors vica- 
via for the benefit (v7ép) of the sinful men, 
to be whose tAaoryjprov He was accordingly 
made by God a sinner. As the ytverdar 
Suxacocvynv deov took place for men imputa- 
tively, so also did the auapriav éroincev avtov 
take place for Christ imputatively. In this 
lies the congruity. 


NOTES. 541 


Norrs py American Eprror. 


(t*) Paul's expectation of living till the Parousia. Ver. 1. 


The strong language of the author on this subject does not appear to be in 
harmony with the Apostle’s own declarations to the elders of Ephesus (Acts xx. 
22-24) and again to his friends at Cesarea (ibid. xxi. 13), in both of which he 
speaks of death as imminent before him, or at least as that which might occur 
at any moment. 


(u*) ‘* A building of God.’’ Ver. 1. 


That this means the resurrection body, as Meyer says, is the opinion of 
almost all the recent expositors. Hodge alone adopts the view that the house 
not made with hands is heaven itself, and argues for it very ably, yet not with 
success ; for if the earthly house is a body, the heavenly house must be one also, 
and a body which is said to be now in heaven and afterwards to come from 
heaven can hardly be identical with heaven. 


(v*) ‘* Be found naked.’ Ver. 3. 


Paul’s confident expectation that he would not be found without a body when 
’ Christ came is naturally, according to the metaphor of the whole passage, 
expressed by saying he would not be found naked. But the term gets a peculiar 
propriety from the fact that the Greek writers were accustomed to use this 
word in describing disembodied spirits. (See Stanley in loco.) — ‘‘If so be’ 
here is by virtue of the connection equivalent to ‘‘ seeing that.” 


(w+) ‘* Not unclothed, but clothed upon.” Ver. 4. 


Stanley gives the sense thus: ‘‘ The groans which I utter being in the taber- 
nacle of the body, are uttered not so much because of the oppression of this 
outward frame (‘being burdened’), not so much from a wish to be entirely 
freed from the mortal part of our nature, as from the hope that it will be 
absorbed into a better life.’” So Hodge: ‘It is not mere exemption from the 
burden of life, its duties, its labors, or its sufferings, which is the object of 
desire, but to be raised to that higher state of existence in which all that is 
mortal, earthly, and corrupt about one shall be absorbed in the life of God, the 
divine and eternal life,’’ 


(x*) ‘* Not by sight.” Ver. 7. 


Meyer’s criticism is true and his rendering is exact, yet it is very certain that the 
Common Version (and the Revised) gives the idea the Apostle intended. though 
not the form in which he expressed it.—‘‘ To walk”’ is = versari, ‘‘pass our life.” 


(x*) ‘* At home with the Lord.’’ Ver. 8. 


The passage sheds light on a matter of which the Bible says little, the state 
of the saved between death and resurrection. For Paul evidently thinks of no 
alternative except to be at home in the body and at home with the Lord. Therefore 
departed believers are with Christ ; and if so, not unconscious (for the uncon- 


542 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


scious are practically nowhere) ; and their nearness to Christ is such that com- 
pared with it their spiritual presence with Him in this life is absence. And 
although they have not yet entered their ‘‘ eternal house’ and put on their 
heavenly clothing, yet in the presence of Christ they are at home. And their 
eternal intercourse with Him has begun. (See Philip.i. 20.) (Beet.) 


(z*) ‘* Things done in the body.” Ver. 10. 


“Tf it is on the deeds done in the body that the judgment is to be held, it fol- 
lows that no change effected after men have left the body will be taken into 
account in fixing their final state” (Principal Brown). — Meyer’s statement 
that the wicked may be recompensed by a lower degree of the Messianic salva- 
tion is wholly unscriptural. The Bible knows of only two classes—the saved 
and the lost. The former have varying degrees of blessedness, but are all 
saved. The latter have varying degrees of suffering (many stripes, few stripes, 
Luke xii. 47, 48), but all are lost. 


(a5) ** We persuade men.” Ver. 11. 


Waite (Speaker's Comm.) and Alford agree with Meyer in viewing this as 
meaning Paul’s desire to convince men of his integrity (so Hodge apparently). 
But Plumptre, Beet, Brown, and others take it in the sense of winning men 
to the Gospel. The former sense is more agreeable to the context and to the 
antithesis in this verse. 


(B°) ‘* Constraineth us.” Ver. 14. 


It is true that the Greek verb does not mean to urge and drive, but it has 
the sense of pressing hard, as a crowd does (Luke viii. 45) ; and why may not 
this meaning of a strong outward pressure pass over into an inward impulse, 
or, as Alford puts it, a forcible compression of energies into one line of action ? 


(c®) “* Therefore all died.’’ Ver. 14. 


The simple sense is that the death of one was the death of all. If one died 
for all, then all died. The Scriptures teach that the relation between Christ and 
His people is analogous to that between Adam and his posterity (Hodge). 
This important passage is greatly obscured by a mistranslation in the Author- 
ized Version, corrected in the Revision of 1881. The ‘‘all” therefore must 
refer to believers, and not to the race, as Meyer thinks. 


(p°) ‘* Who hath reconciled us unto Himself.” Ver. 18. 


Meyer’s exposition of this clause is sound and satisfactory. As Hodge (in 
loc.) says, To reconcile is to remove enmity between parties at variance with 
each other. In this case God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconcilia- 
tion. It is what he experiences or embraces. The enmity between God and 
man is removed by the act of God. It is done by the death of Christ, which, 
however, is represented as a sacrifice ; but the design and nature of a sacrifice 
are to propitiate and not toreform. In Rom. v. 9, 10, ‘‘being reconciled by the 
death of the Son”’ is interchanged as equivalent with ‘‘ being justified by his 
blood,” which proves that the reconciliation intended consists in the satisfac- 


NOTES. 543 


tion of divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, here our reconcili- 
ation to God is made the source and cause of our new creation, é.e. regenera-_ . 
tion. God’s reconciliation to us must precede our reconciliation to Him.-— 
Weiss, who certainly has no dogmatic bias, says: ‘‘'The reconciliation cannot 
consist in this, that man gives up his hostile disposition towards God. It is 
not something: mutual, as if man gives up his enmity and God consequently 
-gives up his dpy7. By not reckoning unto men their trespasses, God gives up 
His enmity to men, which is, as it were, forced upon Him by the sin which 
rouses His wrath. It is He alone that changes His hostile disposition into a 
gracious one, after He has treated the sinless One as a Sinner in behalf of sin- 
ners. (Bib. Theol. Part IIT. chap. vi. note). 


(n°) ‘* Made sin for us.”’ Ver. 21. 


There is probably no one verse in Scripture which states the doctrines of 
atonement and justification more clearly and concisely than this. Dr, Meyer 
has treated it carefully and justly. 


544 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER VIL 


Ver. 14. 4 ric] Elz. : ric dé, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 15. Instead of 
Xptor@, Lachm. and Tisch. have Xpcorov, following B C &, min. Vulg. Copt. 
Fathers. Rightly ; the dative came in from the adjoining words. — Ver. 16. 
dueic. . . E€oTe] Lachm.: jueic.. . éouev, following B D* L &* min. Copt, Clar. 
Germ. Clem. Didym. Aug. (once). To be preferred, since the Recepta was very 
naturally suggested as well by the remembrance of 1 Cor. iii. 16 as by the con- 
nection (vv. 14, 17), while there was no ground for putting jweic . . . éopev in its 
stead. — wor] Lachm.: pov. Attested, no doubt, by BC 8, 17, 37, but easily 
brought in after aivév.! — Ver. 17. &&é2fere] The form é&é/fate is to be adopted, 
with Lachm. Tisch. and Riick., following B C F G 8, 71, al. Damasc. See 
Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 639. 

» 

After Paul has, in vv. 20, 21, expressed by deduefa x.7.4. the first and 
most immediate duty of his ministry as ambassador, he now expresses also 
his further working as a teacher, and that in reference to the readers, vv. 
1, 2. And in order to show how important and sacred is this second part 
of his working as a joint-labourer with Christ, and certainly at the same 
time by way of an example putting his opponents to shame, he thereupon 
sets forth (vv. 3-10), in a stream of diction swelling onward with ever in- 
creasing grandeur, his own conduct in his hortatory activity. ‘‘ Maxima 
est innocentiae contumacia,” Quintil. ii. 4. ‘‘ Verba innocenti reperire 
facile est,” Curtius, vi. 10. 37. 

Ver. 1. Connection and meaning: ‘‘We do not, however, let the matter 
rest merely with that entreaty on Christ’s behalf : be ye reconciled to God, 
but, since we are His fellow-workers, and there is thus more laid on us to do 
than that entreaty on Christ’s behalf, we also exhort that ye lose not again the 
grace of God which you have received (v. 21), that yedo not frustrate it in your 
case by an unchristian life.” — cvvepyoivtec| The ovy finds its contextual refer- 
ence not in the subject of v. 21, where there is only an auxiliary clause 
assigning a reason, nor yet in d¢ tov Yeov mapaxad. dv yudv, ver. 20, in which 
there was given only a modal definition of the rpecBebew txép X., but in 
éxép Xptotov, ver. 20: as working together with Christ. It cannot, therefore, 
apply to God (Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Calvin, Cajetanus, Vorstius, Estius, 
Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
Hofmann, in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. 9), or to the fellow-apostles (Heu- 
mann, Leun), or to the Corinthian teachers (Schulz, Bolten), or to the 
Corinthians in general (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pelagius, Bengel, Billroth, 


1 In the LXX. also, Ley. xxvi. 22, there occurs for pou the variation pov. 


| 


CHAP. VI., 2. 545 
Olshausen *), or to the exhortations, with which his own example co-operates 
(Michaelis, Emmerling, Flatt). The apostles are fellow-workers with Christ 
just in this, that they are ambassadors izép Xpictoi, and as such have to 
represent His cause and prosecute His work. — py ei¢ Kevov K.7.A.] érayee rata 
THY TEpi TOV Biov orovdyY araitov, Chrysostom. For if he that is reconciled 
through faith leads an unchristian life, the reconciliation is in his case frus- 
trated. See Rom. vi., viii. 12, 13, al. —¢ic xevdv] incassum, of no effect, Gal. 
Iie Foil, ii, 16; 1 Thess. iii. 5 ; Diod. xix. 9 ; Heliod. x. 30 ; Jacobs, 
ad Anthol. VII. p. 328. —déZacOa] “is to be explained as recipiatis. So 
Vulgate, Luther, and others, including Riickert, Ewald, Osiander, Hof- 
mann. ‘Those, namely, who, like the readers (juac), have become partakers 
of the reconciliation through compliance with the entreaty in v. 20, are 
placed now under the divine grace (comp. Rom. vi. 14 f.). (f°) And this 
they are not to reject, but to receive and accept (SéEacha), and that not eic¢ 
Kevov, t.€., not without the corresponding moral results, which would be 
wanting if one reconciled and justified by faith were not to follow the 
drawing of grace and the will of the Spirit and to walk in the kawérne rij¢ 
Cw#ce (Rom. vi. 4) as a new creature, etc. Comp. Theodoret. Pelagius also 
is right: ‘‘in vacuum gratiam Dei recipit, qui in novo testamento non 
novus est.” Hence it is not (not even in Rom. xv. 9) to be taken in the 
sense of the praeterite, as many of the more recent commentators (even de 
Wette) take it, contrary to usage, following Erasmus : ‘‘ne committatis, ut, 
semel gratis a peccatis exemti, in pristinam vitam relabentes in vanum rece- 
peritis gratiam Dei.” — iuac| is now, after the apostolic calling has been 
expressed at iv. 20 in its general bearing, added and placed at the end for 
emphasis, because now the discourse passes into the direct exhortation to 
the readers, that they receive not without effect, etc. If in their case that 
apostolic entreaty for reconciliation had not passed without compliance, 
they arenow also to accept and act on the grace under which they have 
been placed. 

Ver. 2 does not assign the reason why Paul is concerned about his official 
action, because, namely, now is the timein which God would have the 
world helped (Hofmann), but gives, as the context requires by the exhorta- 
tion brought in at ver. 1, a parenthetic urgent inducement for complying 
with this exhortation without delay. —idéyer yap| sc. 6 8edc, from what pre- 
'cedes. The passage is Isa. xlix. 8, exactly according to the LXX. The 
person addressed is the MV 73), whose idea is realized in Christ. He is 
regarded as the head of the true people of God ; He is listened to, and He is 
helped, when the grace of God conveyed through Him is not received with- 
out result. (a°) Such is the Messianic fulfilment of that, which in Isaiah is 
promised to the servant of God regarding the deliverance and salvation of 


1Billroth says: ‘‘he does not simply not place himself over the Corinthians; he 


preach the gospel and leave the Corinthians 
then to stand alone, but he at the same 
time busies himself with them for their sal- 
vation, inasmuch as he stands by their side 
with his exhortations as their instructor.” 
Olshausen: ‘‘condescendingly Paul does 


wishes only to be their fellow-labourer, to 
exhort them in such wise as they ought to 
exhort one another.’’ In that case Paul! 
ought to have written ovvepyodvtes 5 duiv, 
in order to be understood. 


546 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the unfortunate people. — xaip@ dexr@] Thus the LXX. translate f)¥7 33, 


at a time of favour. Paul was able to retain the expression of the LXX. all 
the more, that in the fulfilment of the prophetic word the acceptableness 
(dexr@) of the xaipéc for the people of God consists in this, that it is the 
point of time for the display of divine favour and grace. Chrysostom well 
says : xaypo¢ . . . OTHE Owpedc, 6 THE Yapttoc, bTE ovK ~oTLY EvPbvag araiTnOAVYaL 
TOV duapTnudtor, obte Jikny dodvat, GAAG peta Tio aTaAAayRe Kal wupiov droAaicat 
ayabov, dixatoobvnc, aytacuov, Tav dAdwy axavrov. In substance the same 
thing is indicated by év juépa curnpiac, on the day of deliverance. If xa:pic 
dexréc is taken as the time pleasing to God (Hofmann),’ it is less in keeping 
with the parallel ‘‘day of salvation.” The aorists are neither of a future 
(Menochius) nor of a present character (Flatt), but the Deity speaking sees 
the future as having already happened. See on Luke i. 51. —In the com- 
mentary which Paul adds : idod, viv x.7.2., he discloses the element of that 
utterance of God, which moves to the use of this welcome salvation-bringing time. 
Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of deliverance, which 
the prophet has foretold ; now or never may you be successful in obtaining 
salvation through a fruitful acceptance and apprehension of the divine 
grace! If the viv is past, and you have frustrated in your case the grace 
received, then the hearing and help promised by the prophet are no longer 
possible ! The duration of this viv was in Paul’s view the brief interval before 
the near-approaching Parousia. The stronger etrpédodexrog (vill. 12 ; Rom. 
xv. 16, 31 ; Plut. Mor. p. 801 C), which he has used instead of the simple 
form, has proceeded involuntarily from his deep and earnest feeling on the 
subject. 

Ver. 3. The participle is not connected with ver. 11, but (in opposition to 
Hofmann, see on ver. 11) with wapaxaA. in ver. 1, as a qualitative definition 
of the subject. Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ostendit enim, quam serio moneat 
qui ut aliquid proficiat nullis terreatur incommodis, nulla non commoda 
negligat.” Luther finds here an exhortation (let us give no one any kind of 
offence), which, however, is not allowed either by the construction (d:dévrac¢ 
must have been used) or by the contents of what follows. — év under] not 
masculine (Luther) but neuter: in no respect. Comp. év marti, ver. 4. The 
pf is here used, neither unsuitably to the connection with ver. 1 (Hofmann), 
nor instead of ob (Ruckert), but from a subjective point of view : ‘‘ we ex- 
hort . . . as those, who,” etc. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 38, and see Winer, p. 451 


[E. T. 608]. — xpooxorg, only here in the N. T., not found in the LXX. and 3 


Apocr. (Polyb. vi. 6. 8, al.), is equivalent to mpécKxoupa, oxdvdadov, 1.€. an 
occasion for unbelief and unchristian conduct. This is given by a conduct of 
the teachers at variance with the doctrine taught. — pwu7Oy] be blamed ; 
comp. vii. 20. Paul is conscious that he represents the honour of the min- 
istry entrusted to him. (n°) It cannot be proved that wou. denotes only 
light blame (Chrysostom and others, Osiander). See even in Homer, JJ. iii. 
412. It depends on the context, as in Pindar, Pyth. i. 160 ; Lucian, Quom. 
hist. 83: 6 ovdetc dv, aAv oi8 6 MOmog pouhoacbat Sbvato. 


1 Comp. Calvin, who understands by it the ‘‘ tempus plenitudinis” of Gal. iv. 4. 


— 


CHAP. VI., 4-6. 547 


Ver. 4. f. Yuviordvrec éavt.] Here éavr. is not, as in iii. 1, iv. 12, prefixed, 


‘because cuvior. is the leading idea, — d¢ Seot dudxovor] different in sense from 


oc 0. dvaxévovg (Vulg.: ministros). This would mean : we commend ourselves 


‘as those (accusative), who appear as God’s servants. The former means : 


we commend ourselves, as God’s servants convmend themselves. Comp. Kiihner, 
§ 830, 5. The emphasis is on deo. —év brouovy roAdG|] This is the first 
thing, the passive bearing, through which that ovvior. éavt. dc 6. did. takes 
place, through much patience ; the further, active side of the bearing follows 
in ver. 6, év dyvéryrti x.7.4., SO that év OAipeow . . . vyoreiac is that, in which 
(év) the much patience, the much endurance is shown.—Bengel aptly classi- 
fies év OAieow . . . vyoreiacc : ‘‘ Primus ternarius continet genera, secundus 
species adversorum, tertius spontanea.” Comp. Theodoret. — @Ai)., dvdyr., 
orevoy.: climactic designation. On orevoy., comp. iv. 8. It is impractica- 
ble, and leads to arbitrariness, to find a climax also in the three points that 


follow, the more especially as the very first point is worse and more dis- 


graceful than the second. — év rAyyaic] Comp. xi. 23-25 ; Acts xvi. 23. — 
év axataotaciac| in tumults. Comp. e.g. Acts xii. 50, xiv. 19, xvi. 19 ff., 
xix. 28 ff. The explanation : instabilities, i.e. banishments from one place 
to another (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Schulz, Flatt, 
Olshausen), is in itself possible (comp. doratoiyev 1 Cor. iv. 11) ; but in the 
whole of the N. T. axaracr. only means either confusion, disorder (1 Cor. 
xiv. 82 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Jas. iii. 16), or in a special sense tumult (Luke xxi. 
9; comp. Ecclus. xxvi. 27). See, regarding the latter signification, the 
profane passages in Wetstein, Schweighiuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 17. — év aypury. | 
in sleeplessnesses, for the sake of working with his hands, teaching, travel- 
ling, meditating, praying, through cares, etc. Comp. xi. 27; Acts xx. 31. 
On the plural, comp. Herod. iii. 129. — év xérorc] is not, with Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others, to be understood only of labour with the hands (1 
Cor. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8), whicli limitation is not sug- 
gested by the context, but of toilsome labours in general, which the conduct 
of the apostolic ministry entailed. Comp. xi. 23, 27. — éy vyoteiaic] is gen- 
erally explained of the endurance of hunger and want (1 Cor. iv. 11 ; Phil. 
iv. 12). But since vyoreia is never used of compulsory fasting, and since 
Paul himself (xi. 27) distinguishes év vyoretac from év Aud x. diner, We must, 
with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Calvin (comp. also Osiander, Hofmann), 
explain it of voluntary fasting, which Paul, using with free spirit the time- 
honoured asceticism, imposed on himself. The objections, that this is at 
variance with the apostle’s spirit, or is here irrelevant, are arbitrary. See 
Matt. vr. 16, ix. 15, xvii. 21; Acts xiv. 23; comp. xiii. 2, 3, ix. 9; also 1 
Cor. vii. 5. (1°) 

In ver. 6, the series begun with év byowovm roAAH goes further. — év ayvor- 
yrt| through purity, moral sincerity in general. Comp. dyvéc, Phil. iv. 8 ; 
1 Tim. v. 22; 1 John iii. 3. To understand this as meaning abstinentia a 
venere (Grotius and others), or contempt for money (Theodoret), is a limita- 
tion without ground in the context, and presents too low a moral standard 
fora servant of God. — év yvéce:] Of the high degree of his evangelical knowl!- 
edge, in particular of the moral will of God in the gospel, there is evidence 


é 


548 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in every one of his Epistles and in every one of his speeches in the Book of 
Acts. Calvin and Morus arbitrarily think that what is meant is recte e 
scienter agendi peritia, or (comp. also Riickert and Osiander) true practical 
prudence, —év paxpobvuia] amid offences. —év ypnorérytt| through kindness 
(Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.). The two are likewise associated in 1 Cor. 
xill. 4 ; Gal. v. 22. — év rvebyu. ayiw| is not to be limited arbitrarily to the 
charismata (Grotius. and others), but : through the Holy Spirit; of whom tes- 
timony is given by our whole working and conduct just as the fruit of the 
Spirit (comp. Gal. v. 22) and walk according to the Spirit (Gal. v. 25). 
The position of this and the following point is determined by the circum- 
stance, that Paul, in addition to the points adduced (év broworp. . . év dyv6- 
tyTt K.T.A.), now further mentions their objective divine source, which he 
bears in himself (év rvebtuate dyiw), as well as the fundamental virtue of the 
Christian (év aydry avuroxp., comp. Rom. xii. 9; 1 Pet. i. 22 f., iv. 8), which 
springs from this source, and without which even those elements already 
named would fail him (1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 1 ff., xiv. 1). In this way he 
brings to completion that portion of his self-attestation which reaches to 
this point. 
Ver. 7. The enumerations hitherto made related generally to the conduct 
and character of God’s servants; now the stream, swelling ever more boldly, 
passes over to the province of the teacher’s work, and pours itself forth from 
ver. 8 in a succession of contrasts between seeming and being, which are so 
many triumphs of the apostle’s clear self-assurance. — év Aéyq adnb.| through 
discourse of truth, i.e. through doctrine, the character of which is truth. Comp. 
ii. 17, iv. 2. It will not do to take, with Riickert, Ady. aA7n6. objectively, as 
equivalent to evayyéAvov, because, as at Eph. i. 13, Col. i. 5, the article could 
not have been omitted. — év duvauer Yeor| through power of God, which shows 
itself efficacious in our work of teaching, iv. 7. Comp, 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20. 
The limitation to the miracles is arbitrary (Theophylact, comp. Emmerling 
and Flatt). — dia tévérAdy the dixatoc. x.7.A.] is by Grotius connected with 
what precedes (Dei virtute nobis arma subministrante, etc.) ; but seeing that 
other independent points are afterwards introduced by 6:4, we must suppose 
that Paul, who elsewhere without. any special purpose varies in his use of 
equivalent prepositions, passes from the instrumental év to the instrumental 
61a, so that we have here also a special point : through the weapons, which 
righteousness furnishes. The dixacocbvy is to be taken in the usual dogmatic 
sense. Comp. t7v Oépaxa ti¢ Sixatoc., Eph. vi. 15. It is the righteousness of 
Jaith which makes us strong and victorious in the way of assault or defence 
against all opposing powers. See the noble commentary of the apostle him- 
self in Rom. viii. 31-39. It has been explained of moral integrity (comp. 
Rom. vi. 13, 19 ; Eph. v. 9, vi. 14), the genitive being taken either as ad 
justitiam implendam (Grotius), or as weapons, which the consciousness of in- 
tegrity gives (Krasmus, Beza, Calvin, Billroth), or which are allowed to a moral 
man and are at his command (Riickert), or which minister to that which is of 
right (Hofmann), and the like ; but the explanation has this against it, that 
the context contains absolutely nothing which leads us away from the hab- 
itual Pauline conception of dcacootvy, as it was most definitely expressed 


CHAP. VI., 8-10. 549 


even at v. 21, whereas the idea of dirvayie Oeod stands in quite a Pauline con- 
nection with that of dicaoctvy Geov. See Rom. i. 16, 17. Hence there is no 
ground for uniting the two conceptions of dicacooivy (Osiander), or for ex- 
plaining it of righteousness as a quality of God which works through Paul 
(Kling). The explanation : arma justa, legitimate weapons (Flatt, follow- 
ing Heumann and Morus), is out of the question. —rév degidv Kat apict.} 
right-hand and left-hand arms, an apportioning specification of the whole ar- 
mament. The former are the weapons of attack wielded with the right hand, 
the latter are the weapons of defence (shield) ; the warrior needs both together. 
Hence it was unsuitable to refer the former specially to ves prosperas, the 
latter to res adversas (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, follow- 
ing the Fathers) : ‘‘ne prosperis elevemur, nec frangamur adversis,” Pelagius. 
Comp. rather, on the subject-matter, x. 4 f. 

Ver. 8. It is usually supposed that 6:4 here is not. again instrumental, but 


local: (going) through honour and shame, or in the sense of the accompanying 


circumstances (Hofmann): amid honour and shame, we commend ourselves, 
namely, as God’s servants, ver. 4. This is arbitrary on the very face of it ; 
besides, in this way of taking it there is no mode of the apostolic self-com- 
mendation at all expressed. Hence Billroth was right in trying to keep to the 
instrumental sense : ‘‘as well honour as shame (the latter, in so far as he bears 
it with courage and patience) must contribute to the apostles commendation.” 
But, on the other hand, it may be urged that, according to the words, it 
must be the shame itself (as also the dé£a itself), and not the manner of 
bearing it, which commends. Hence it is rather to be taken : through glory, 
which we earn for ourselves among the friends of God, and through dis- 
honour, which we draw on ourselves among opponents ; through both we 
commend ourselves as God’s servants. On the latter idea (kai ariuiac), comp. 
Matt. v. 11 ;"Luke vi. 22; 1 Pet.iv. 14; also Gal. i.10. In a correspond- 
ing way also what follows is to be taken: through evil report and good re- 
port. — oc TAdva k. GAnfeic] With this there begins a series of modal defint- 
tions, which furnish a triumphant commentary on the two previous state- 
ments, dia dd6En¢ kK. atiiac, did dvodnu. K. evonu. In this case the order of the 
clauses (the injurious aspect being always put first) corresponds to the order 
of dvag. x. etonu. The first clause always gives the tenor of the daripia and 
dvodnuia ; the second clause, on the other ‘hand, gives the actual state of the 
cease, and consequently also the tenor of the déga and eignuia. Hence : as 
deceivers and true, i.e. as people who are both, the former in the opinion and 
in the mouth of enemies, the latter in point of fact.. Accordingly, xai is not 
‘Cand yet” (Luther and many others), but the simple and. — On the seven 
times repeated dc, Valla rightly remarks: ‘‘ Paulina oratio sublimis atque 
urgens.” Comp. Augustine, de doctr. Christ. iv. 20.—On rAdvor, which 
does not mean ‘‘erring” (Ewald), comp. Matt. xxvii. 63; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 
John vii. 12 ; and Wetstein. 

Vv. 9, 10. *Ayvootpevor] not : mistaken or misjudged (Flatt, Hofmann, and 
others), nor yet: people, for whom nobody cares (Grotius), but : people, 
whom no one is acquainted with (Gal. i. 22) ; obscwre men, of whom no one 
knows anything. Comp. ayvéc¢ and the contrasted yrdpiuoc, Plato, Pol. ii. 


550 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


p. 375 E ; also Demosth. 851. 27. — érvyivock.] becoming well known ; comp. 
on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Matt. xi. 27. By whom? Riickert thinks: by God. 
But without ground in the text, which rather demands the reference to men, 
as Chrysostom rightly saw : o¢ ayv. x. éxyevwok., TovTo éate dia SbENe Kal aTimiac, 
Toig wev yap joav yvopmywor Kai meptorrotdactor, ot dé ovdé eldévae avtove 7HFiovr. 
Hence : as people who are unknown (viz. according to the contemptuous 
judgment of opponents), and well known (in reality among all true .believers), 
— arobvAckovtec] The continual sufferings and deadly perils of the apostle 
gave to his opponents occasion to say : he is on the point of death, he is at 
his last ! Paul considered himself as moribundus (1 Cor. xv. 31), but from 
what an entirely different point of view! See 2 Cor. iv. 7-15.—x«ai ido 
COuev| and, behold, we are in life! We find a commentary on thisin iv. 7 ff. 
Comp. 1.10. The construction often varies so, that after the use of the parti- 
ciple the discourse passes over to the finite verb (Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 327 
f. [E. T. 382 f.]); but here, in the variation introduced with a lively surprise by 
ido (comp. v. 17), there is implied a joyful feeling of victory. ‘‘ Vides non 
per negligentiam veteres hoc genere uti, sed consulto, ubi quae conjuncta 
sunt ad vim sententiae simul tamen distinguere volunt paulo expressius,” 
Dissen, ad Pind. Isthm. p. 527. —o¢ ratdevduevor x. un Oavar.] a reminiscence, 
perhaps, of Ps. exvili. 18 ; raid. is not, however, to be understood of act- 
ual chastisements by scourging and the like (Cajetanus, Menochius, Estius, 
Flatt). This, judged by the analogy of the other clauses, would be too 
much a matter of detail, and it would be specially inappropriate, because in all 
the clauses the view of His opponents is placed side by side with the true 
state of the case. We must rather think of God as the radetwr. The sor- 
rowful condition of the apostle gave his opponents occasion for concluding : 
he is a chastened man! a man who is under the divine chastening rod! (5°) 
— kai uy Oavat.| In his humble piety he does not deny that he’stands under 
God’s discipline (hence there is here no opposite of the first clause); but he 
knows that God’s discipline will not proceed to extremity, as His opponents 
thought ; therefore he adds: and not becoming killed! not sinking under 
this chastening.—Ver. 10. In the opinion and judgment of our enemies we 
are people full of sorrow, poor, and having nothing (starving and penniless 
wretches !) ; and in reality we are c‘ all times rejoicing (through our Christian 
frame of mind, comp. Rom. v. 3, and the yapa év rvetuate ayiw, Rom. xiv. 
17; 1 Thess. iv. 6), enriching many (with spiritual benefits, 1 Cor. i.5 ; 2 
Cor. vill. 9), and having in possession everything (because entrusted with the 
store of all divine benefits in order to impart them to others). This rdvra 
xatéy., like the previous roAdodce riovrit., is by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Grotius, Estius, explained in this way, that Paul could have disposed of the 
property of the Christians, and have enriched many by instituting collec- 
tions. But such an inferior reference is altogether out of keeping with the 
lofty tone of the passage, more especially at. its close, where it reaches its 
acme. Comp. also Gemara Nedarim f. 40. 2 : ‘‘ Recipimus non esse pauperem 
nisi in scientia. In Occidente seu terra Israel dixerunt : in quo scientia est, 
is est ut ille, in quo omnia sunt; in quo illa deest, quid est in eo ?” 
Riickert’s opinion, that in those two clauses Paul was thinking of nothing 


CHAP. Vi. 1d). 551 


definite at all, is unjust towards the apostle. Olshausen, followed by 
Neander, wishes to find the explanation of -révra karéy. in 1 Cor. iii, 22. 
But this is less suitable to the roAdode rAourit., evidently referring to the 
spiritual gifts, to which it is related by way of climax. 

Ver. 11-vii. 1. After the episode in vv. 3-10,! Paul turns with a concil- 
iatory transition (vv. 11-13) to a special, and for the Corinthians necessary, 
form of the exhortation expressed in ver. 1 (vv. 14-18). This is followed 
up in vii. 1 by a general appeal, which embraces the whole moral duty of 
the Christian. 

Ver. 11. Our mouth stands open towards you, Corinthians ; our heart is en- 
larged. — 76 oréua Huey avéwye| This expression is in itself nothing further 
than a picturesque representation of the thought : to begin to speak, or to 
speak. See, especially, Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 97, and the remark on 
Matt. v. 2. A qualitative definition may be added simply through the con- 
text, as is the case also here partly through the general character of the pre- 
vious passage, vv. 3-10, which is a very open, unreserved utterance, partly 
by means of the parallel 7 xapdia yuév werAdrvvta. Thus in accordance with 
the context the opposite of reserve is here expressed. Comp. Chrysostom 1. 
Had Paul merely written AcAaAgnauev iuiv, the same thought would, in vir- 
tue of the context, have been implied in it (we have not been reserved, but 
have let ourselves be openly heard towards you) ; but the picturesque 1é 
oréua judy avéwye is better fitted to convey this meaning, and is therefore 
purposely chosen. Comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 22; Ecclus. xxii. 22 ; Eph. vi. 19 ; 
Aeschylus, Prometh. 612. This at the same time in opposition to Fritzsche, 
who adheres to the simple haec ad vos locutus sum, as to which, we may re- 
mark, the haec is imported. Rickert (comp. Chrysostom 2) finds the sense 
to be : ‘‘ sce, I have begun to speak with you once, I have not concealed... from 
you my apostolic sentiments ; I cannot yet close my mouth, I must speak with 
you yet further.” But the thought: J must speak with you yet further, is 
imported ; how could the reader conjecture it from the simple perfect ? 
Just as little is it to be assumed, with Hofmann, that Paul wishes only to 
state that he had not been reserved with what he had to say, so that this 
expression is only are sumption of the rapaxadoipev py cig Kevov x.7.A. In ver. 
1. Only in an arbitrary and violent manner can we reject the reference to 
vy. 3-10, where such a luxuriance of holy grandiloquentia has issued from 
his mouth. — dvéwya, in the sense of avéwyyaz, is frequent in later Greek (in 
Tl. xvi. 221, avéwyev is imperfect), and is rejected by Phrynichus as a sole- 
cism. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 157 f. — Kopiv6ior] Regarding this particu- 


1The supposition that there is an ab- 
normal, and in this respect certainly unex- 
ampled construction, under which ver. 11 
should be taken as concluding the main 
clause along with ‘‘ the preceding long- 
winded participial clause’ (Hofmann), 
ought to have been precluded by the very 
consideration that that ‘‘ long-winded” ac- 
cumulation of participles, in which, hgw- 
ever, Paul paints his whole life active and 
passive with so much enthusiasm, and, as 


it were, triumphant heroism, would stand 
utterly disproportioned to that which he 
says in ver. 11, and which is only a brief, 
gentle, kindly remark. What a magnificent 
preparation for such alittle quiet sentence 
without substantial contents! The exam- 
ples cited by Hofmann from Greek writers 
and the N. T. (Acts xx. 3; Mark ix. 20) are 
too weak analogies. See regarding similar 
real anacolutha, Winer, p. 527 f. [E. T. 
709 f.]. Comp. on Mark ix. 20. 


552 ‘ PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


lar form of address without article or adjective (it is otherwise in Gal. iii. 
1) Chrysostom judges rightly : kai 4 rpoobjKn dé Tov dvéuarog didiag TOAAHe Kai 
diabécews Kai Oepudrytoc, Kat yap etOfapmev TOV ayarwuévwn ovveyxdo yuuva Ta dvéuaTa 
meptotpégerv. Comp. Phil.iv. 15. Bengel: ‘‘rara et praesentissima appella- 
tio.” — 7 xapdia juov reAdrvvrat] cannot here mean either: J feel myself cheered 
and comforted (comp. Ps. cxix. 32; Isa. lx. 5), as Luther, Estius, Kypke, 
Michaelis, Schleusner, Flatt, Bretschneider, Schrader, and others hold, or : 
I have expressed myself frankly, made a clean breast (Semler, Schulz, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller, de Wette, comp. Beza), because vv. 12 and 13 are against both 
ways of taking it ; but, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and the 
majority, it is to be taken as an expression of the dove which, by being stirred 
up and felt, makes the heart wide, while by the want of love and by hate 
the heart is narrowed and contracted. The figurative expression needed no 
elucidation from the Hebrew, and least suitable of all is the comparison 
with Deut. xi. 16 (Hofmann), where the figurative meaning of 5 is of 
quite another kind. See, however, the passages in Wetstein on ver. 12. — 
The two parts of the verse stand side by side as parallels without a con- 
nective participle (kai), in order that thus the second thought, which out- 
weighs the first, might come into more prominent relief,—a relation which 
is indicated by the emphatic prefixing of 7rd oréua and 7 xapdia. (The mean- 
ing accordingly is: We have (vv. 8-10) spoken openly to you, Corinthians ; 
our heart has therein become right wide in love towards you—which, however, 
may not be interpreted of readiness to receive the readers (Hofmann), for 
they are already in his heart (vii. 8 ; comp. Phil. i. 7). The relation of the 
two clauses is taken differently by Emmerling, who inserts a because between 
them, and by Fritzsche, who says : ‘‘ quod vobis dixi ejusmodi est, wt inde 
me vos amare appareat.” But it may be urged against both that we are not 
justified in taking the two perfects as different in temporal import, the one 
as a real praeterite, and the other with the force of a present. In rerAarvvra 
it is rather implied that Paul has felt his love to the Corinthians strengthened, 
his heart towards them widened, during his writing of the passage vv. 3-10 
(by its contents)—a result, after such an outpouring, intelligible enough, 
psychologically true, and turned to account in order to move his readers. 
Ver. 12. A negative confirmation of the 7 kapdia ju. erat. just said, an 
opposite state of matters on the part of the Corinthians. — Wot straitened are 
ye in us, but straitened in your innermost part, (ord., the seat of love, like 
xapdia, ver. 11, to which the expression stands related under the increasing 
emotion by way of climax). The meaning of it is: ‘‘valde vos amo, non 
atem vos me.” (K°) It is impossible, on account of the oi, to take it as an 
emperative (Aretius, Luther, Heumann, Morus, Schleusner). — ob orevoy. év 
juiv| non angusto spatio premimini in animis nostris: in this Paul retains the 
figure of the previous 7 xapd. ju. rexAdr. Chrysostom aptly says : 6 yap ¢:Aob- 
pevoc eta TOAAHe Evdov év TH Kapdia Tov gAcWVTOS Baditer THO adetac. Comp. Vil. 
3; Phil. i. 7. The negative expression is an affectionate, pathetic litotes, 
to be followed by an equally affectionate paternal reproof. This is explana- 
tion enough, and dispenses with the hypothesis that Paul is referring to 
the opinion of the church, that it had too narrow a space—a smaller place 


CHAP. VI., 13. 5d3 


/ 


than it wished—in his heart (Hofmann). Those who interpret mdar., ver. 
11, as to cheer, take the meaning to be: not through us do ye become troubled, 
but through yourselves (Kypke, Flatt ; comp. Elsner, Estius, Wolf, Zacha- 
riae, Schrader ; comp. also Luther),—a thought, however, which is foreign 
to the whole connection ; hence Flatt also assumes that Paul has vii. 2 ff. 
already in his thoughts ; and Schrader explains ver. 14—vii. 1 as an interpo- 
lation.’ — orevoy. dé év t. ord. bu.] so that there is in them no right place for 
us (comp. 1 John iil. 17). Chrysostom : ov« eizev" ob gideite jude, GAN ob 
Paul did not write orevoywpotpyeba 02 jueic év ToIc oA. 
qu., because by this the contrast would have passed from the thing to the 
persons (for he had not, in fact, written oby tyeic orevoywp. év juiv), and so 
the passage would have lost in fitting concert and sharp force. Riickert 
thinks that Paul refers in ver. 12 to an utterance of the Corinthians, who 
had said : crevoywpotueha év ait® ! meaning, we are perplexed at him, and 
that now he explains to them how the matter stood with this crevoywpeicbat, 
but takes the word in another sense than they themselves had done. A 
strangely arbitrary view, since the use of the orevoywpeiofac in our passage 
was occasioned very naturally and completely by the previous rexrAdr. Comp. 
Chrysostom, Theodorct. 

Ver. 13. A demand for the opposite of the said orevoywpeicbe év toig ord. 
om. just said.—The accusative rv aityv avtyuobiav is not to be supplemented 
either by habentes (Vulgate), nor by eicevéyeare (Oecumenius, Theophylact), 
nor to be connected with Aéyw (Chrysostom, Beza, and others); it is anaco- 
luthic (accusative absolute), so that it emphatically sets forth an object of 
discourse, without grammatically attaching to it the further construction. 
It is otherwise in ili. 18. There is not an interruption, but a rhetorical break- 
ing off of the construction. These accusatives, otherwise explained by «ard, 
are therefore the beginning of a construction which is not continued. See 
Schaefer, ad Dem. V. pp. 314, 482 f.; Matthiae, p. 955. Comp. Bernhardy, 
p- 182 f.; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 329, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 407 ; Winer, p. 576 


peTa TOV avTOv péTPoD. 


1 Emmerling explains this section vi. sages of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Be- 


14-vii. 1 to be, not an interpolation, but a 
disturbing addition, only inserted by Paul 
on reading over the Epistle again, “sen- 
tentiis subito in animo exortis.” And re- 
cently Ewald has explained it asaninsertea 
fragment from another Epistle, proceeding 
probably only from some apostolic man, 
to a Gentile Christian church. But (1) the 
apparent want of fitting in to the connec- 
tion, even if it did exist (but see on ver. 14), 
would least of all warrant this view in the 
case of an Epistle written under so lively 
emotion. (2) The contents are quite Pau- 
line, and sufficiently ingenious. (8) The 
name fBedAiap, which does not occur else- 
where in Scripture, is not evidence against 
Paul, since in his Epistles (the Pastoral ones 
excepted) even the name 64:dBodos, so cur- 
rent elsewhere, occurs only at two pas- 


sides, the cuudav. Xpiot@ mpds BeAiap may be 
an echo of some apocryphal utterance 
known, to the readers (comp. Eph. v. 14). 
(4) The expressions petoxyn (Comp. meTéexev, 
1 Cor. ix. 10, a@.), wepis (comp. Col. i. 12), cvp- 
daévyois (COMp. avedwvos, 1 Cor. vii. 5), 
kavapicw (comp. Eph. v. 26), cannot, any 
more than ovyxatédeors which he does not 
use elsewhere, excite well-grounded suspi- 
cion in the case of one so rich in handling 
the language. (5) The critical evidence 
gives.not the slightest trace of ground for 
assuming that the section did not originally 
stand in all the manuscripts. How differ- 
ent it is with passages really interpolated, 
such as Mark xvi. 9 ff.; John vii. 33 ff.! Yet 
Holsten has also, zur. Hvang. d. Paul. u. 
Petr. p. 387, assented to the condemnation 
of the section. 


554 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


[E. T. 774]. — air#v] Paul has blended by way of attraction the two concep- 
tions 7d avré and ry avtyucbiavy. See Fritzsche, Dissert. I. p. 114 ff. Riick- 
ert arbitrarily says : Paul wished to write dcabrug dé nai ipueig rAarbvOyrte, 
TH éunv avtyucbiav, but, by prefixing the latter, he brought the idea of dcat- 
tw¢ also into the first clause, where it necessarily had now to appear as an 
adjective. He certainly has not only placed, but also thought rv avripobiav 
first, but at the same time 7d avré was also in his mind. — The parenthetic ac 
réxvowc Aéyw justifies the expression ry avr. avtyucbiav ; for it is the duty of 
children to recompense a father’s love by love inreturn. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 4. 
Chrysostom : ovdév péya aité, ei ratyp Ov BobAoua gidciobar rap’ buov. 'The 
notion of children yet untrained (Ewald) would be indicated by something 
like vyrioe (1 Cor. iii. 1). 

Ver. 14. As a contrast to the desired wAariv., Paul now forbids their mak- 
ing common cause with the heathen, and so has come to the point of stating 
what was said generally at ver. 1 (uy ei¢ xevdv rT. y. T. Oeov déEacfar) More pre- 
cisely, in a form needful for the special circumstances of the Corinthians, in 
order to warn them more urgently and effectually of the danger of losing 
their salvation. — yy yiveobe érepofvy.| Bengel : ‘‘ ne jiatis, molliter pro : ne 
sitis.” He does not forbid all intercourse with the heathen whatever (see 1 
Cor. v. 10, x. 27, vil. 12), but the making common cause with heathen 
efforts and aims, the entering into the heathen element of life. There is no 
ground for assuming exclusively special references (such as to. sacrificial 
banquets or to mixed marriages), any more than for excluding such refer- 
ences. — érepofvyoirvrec| see, in general, Wetstein. It means here : bearing 
another (a different kind of) yoke. Comp. érepéfvyoc, Lev. xix. 19 ; Schleus- 
ner, Thesaur. Il. p. 557. Paul undoubtedly has in mind the figurative con- 
ception of two different animals (as ox and ass) which are yoked together in 
violation of the law (Deut. xxii. 9),—a conception, in which the heteroge- 
neous fellowship of Christians with heathen is aptly portrayed : drawing a 
yoke strange to you. In this verse the dative driotoe denotes a fellowship, 
in which the unbelieving partner forms the standard which determines the 
mode of thought and action of the Christian partner. For this dative can- 
_ not mean ‘‘ with unbelievers” (the usual explanation), as if cv{vyotvrec had been 
used ; but it is not so much dativus commodi (Hofmann : for the pleasure of 
unbelievers), a thought which Paul would have doubtless expressed with 
more precision, as the dativus ethicus (Kriiger, § 48. 6); so that the words 
mean : do not draw for unbelievers a strange yoke. The yoke meant is that 
drawn by unbelievers, one of a kind strange to Christians (érepoiov), and the 
latter are not to put themselves at the disposal of unbelievers, by sharing the 
drawing it. The great danger of the relation against which Paul warns them, 
lies in this dative expression. (L°) According to Theophylact (comp. Chrys- 
ostom), the sense is: py aduxeite Td Oikatov émikdevopevor Kal mpookeiuevor ol¢ ov 
6éuic, so that the figurative expression is taken from the unequal balance 
(Phocylides, 13 : craOudv py Kpobew érepdlvyov, aA ioov sAxev). But apart 
from the circumstance that Paul would in that case have expressed himself 
at least very strangely, the reminiscence from the O. T., which the common 
view assumes, must still be considered as the most natural for the apos- 





CHAP. VI., 15. 555 
tle. — ric yap petoxy x.t.A. | for how utterly incompatible is the Christian with 
the heathen character !_ Observe the impressiveness of the accumulated ques- 
tions, and of the accumulated contrasts in these questions. The first four 
questions are joined in two pairs ; the fifth, mounting to the highest desig- 
nation of Christian holiness, stands alone, and to it are attached, as a forci- 
ble conclusion of the discourse, the testimony and injunction of God which 
confirm it.? — dvcatoobvy x. avouia| For the Christian is justified by faith (v. 
21, vi. 7), and this condition excludes immoral conduct (avouia, 1 John iii. 
4), which is the element of heathen life (Rom. vi. 19). The two life-ele- 
ments have nothing in common with each other, Rom. viii. 1 ff.; Gal. ii. 15 
ff.—In the second question the Christian life-element appears as 6éc, and the 
heathen as oxéroc: Comp. Eph. v. 8, 11f.; Col.1.12f. In the latter is 
implied 7 adyvoia kai 7 duapria, and in $6¢ : 7 yvdorg Kai 6 Biog 6 évOeo¢ (in both, 
the intellectual and the ethical element are to be thought of together), 
Gregory Naz. Or. 36.—Regarding the two datives, of which the second is 
expressed in Latin by cwm, see Matthiae, p. 883 ; and the zpéc, in the second 
clause, is the expression of social relation, like our with. See Bernhardy, p. 
265. Comp. Plato, Conv. p. 209C : Kkowwviav . . . mpd¢ addqdove, Stobaeus, 
S. 28: et 08 tic gots Kowwwvia Tpd¢ Oeove juiv, Philo. Leg. ad Cai. p. 1007 C : ric 
ody Kowavia mpd¢ "ATOAAwva TO udev oiKeiov éxiteTHdevKdte, Ecclus. xiii. 2. 

Ver. 15. The five different shades given to the notion of fellowship vouch 
for the command which the apostle had over the Greek language, — Regard- 
ing the use of dé before a new question with the same word of interrogation, 
see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169. — Bediap] Name of the devil (the Peshitto 
has Satan), properly 5373 (wickedness, as concrete equivalent to Ilovypéc) ; 
hence the reading BeAia’ (Elzevir, Lachmann) is most probably a correction. 
The form feA/ap, which also occurs frequently in the Zest. XII. Patr. (see 
Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. 1. pp.539, 587, 619, a/.), in Ignatius as interpo- 
lated, in the Canon. Ap., and in the Fathers (see Wetstein, critical remarks), 
is to be explained from the not unfrequent interchange of 2 and p in the 
common speech of the Greek Jews. In the O. T. the word does not occur 
asaname. See, generally, Gesenius, Thesaurus, I. p. 210. —ocvudérqjoce, 
harmony, accord, only here in the N. T., not inthe LXX. The Greeks say 
cvupovia and obudwvov (with rpdc, Polyb. vi. 86. 5; Plat. Lach. p. 188 D); the 
simple form ¢évyore in Pollux ii. 111. — On epic, share, comp. Acts vill. 21. 
The two have no partnership with one another, possess nothing in common 
with one another. The believer has, in Christ, righteousness, peace, etc., 
all of which the unbeliever has not, and one day will have pepi¢ rod KAfpov 


tov dylwy, Col. i. 12. In strict logic 7 tig wepic . . . ariorov did not belong 


1 Hence our view (comp. Vulgate) is to 
be preferred also to that of Theodoret: « 
piujonode Tovs éTépws EvvevovTas Boas Kai TOV 
Guyov KAivovTas. Thy Tay amiaTwy amaTny 
THS NMETEpas TpoTiuavTes SLdacKaAtas. 

2 Hofmann brings the second and third 
questions, as well as the fourth and fifth, 
into closer relation. Neither the particles 7 
and 6¢, nor the prepositions mpés and pera, 


nor yet the contents of the questions, are 
decisive. But it is in favour of our divi- 
sion, which Lachmann has also, that only 
to the jifth question is there specially 
added the great and important scriptural 
testimony, vv. 16-18, which is quite in keep- 
ing with its isolated and distinctive posi- 
tion. 


556 .PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

to this series of elements of proof, since it contains the proposition itself to 
be proved, but it has come in amidst the lively, sweeping flow of the dis- 
course. 

Ver. 16. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. What agreement (Polyb. ii. 58. 11, iv. 17. 8) 
has the temple of God with idols?. how can it reconcile itself with them? 
Comp. on ovyxatd9.; also Ex. xxiii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 51. (1°) The two are 
contraries, which stand negatively related to one another ; if the temple of 
God should come into contact with idols (as was the case, e.g., under Ahaz), 
it would be desecrated. — jjueic yap «.7.A.] With this Paul proves that he 
was not without reason in using the words ri¢ dé cuyxardbeowe vad Oeov K.7.A. 
of the contradiction between the Christian and the heathen character. The 
emphasis is on #ueic : for we Christians are (sensu mystico) the temple of the 
living God.1— Cévroc| in contrast with the dead idols in the heathen temples. 
—Kaboc eitev 6 Oedc| in accordance with the utterance of God: Lev. xxvi. 12, 
freely after the LXX., the summary of the divine covenant of promise. — 
év abtoic| among them; ‘see below, éumepiuratiow, walk about in (Lucian, 
adv. Ind. 6; Ach. Tat. i. 6; LXX.). The indwelling of God in the body 
of Christians as in His temple, and the intercourse of His gracious rule in it 
éurepit.), take place through the medium of the Spirit. See on 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; 
John xiv. 23. 

Ver. 17. With the foregoing quotation Paul now combines another in 
keeping with his aim (ver. 14), containing the application which God has 
made of His previous promise. But this quotation is still freer than the 
one before, after the LXX. Isa. lii. 11, and the last words kaya eiadéFouat 
jac, are perhaps joined with it through a reminiscence of Ezek. xx. 34 (comp. 
Ezek. xi. 17; Zech. x. 8). Osianderand most expositors find in kayo eiadé€. 
du. a reproduction approximately as to sense of the words in Isa. li. 12: 
nai 6 ériovvaywv buac Kiptoc 6 Oed¢ "Iopana ; but this is, at any rate, far-fetched, 
and, considering Paul’s usual freedom in joining different passages of the 
0. T., unnecessarily harsh. — airév] applies to the heathen. — axafaprov pt 
anrteote| Just as ééAGere «.7.A2. had referred (aorist) to the separation to be 
accomplished from the fellowship of a heathen life, so this refers, in the 
sense of the prophetic fulfilment, to the continuing (present) abstinence from 
all heathen habits (not simply from offerings to idols), and kay eiodéE. iy. 
to their reception into sonship, see ver. 18. It is correlative to é&éAGare ; 
God wishes to receive those who have gone forth into His paternal house, 
4.e. into the fellowship of the true theocracy (ver. 18). 

Ver. 18. Continuation of the promise begun with kayo eiodée. bu., and 
holding forth the holy compensation for the enjoined severance from an 


unholy intercourse with the heathen. 


1So according to the reading mets... 
égpev. See the critical remarks. Accord- 
ing to the Recepta tuets . . . éote (So also 
Tisch. [but not in his last edition] defended 
by Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann) it would 
apply to the Corinthian church, which in 
the spiritual sense is the temple of God, as 
1 Cor. iii. 16. Ewald has rightly upheld the 


The passage is most probably a free 


reading yueis .. . éouvev, but has wrongly 
used it against the genuineness of the sec- 
tion (Jahrb. IX. p. 216). How often in a 
connection, where Paul is speaking of him- 
self in the first person plural, has he there- 
upon expressed also in the same person 
the consciousness of Christians generally, 
as ¢.g. just at v. 21. : 


NOTES. 557 


and enlarged quotation from 2 Sam. vii. 14. It bears less resemblance to 
Jer. xxxi. 9, or even to Isa. xliii. 6. And Jer. xxxi. 33, xxxii. 38, are quite 
out of the question, because there the sonship is not mentioned. Cajetanus 
conjectured that it was from a writing now lost, just as Ewald finds, from 
kay® Onwards, a passage now unknown to us ; according to Grotius, the 
words are ex hymno aliquo celebri apud Hebraeos. The freedom of the N. T. 
writers in using probative passages from the O. T. renders both hypotheses 
unnecessary ; of the latter no instance can be shown in Paul, and in itself 
it is arbitrary. (N°) —ktipiog mavtoxpdtwp| ‘‘ex hac appellatione perspicitur 
magnitude promissionum,” Bengel ; rather, on account of the specific con- 
tents of ravrox.: the unquestionble certainty of the fulfilment (Rom. iv. 21 ; 
2 Cor. ix. 8, al.), which no power can hinder. Used only here by Paul 
(often in the Apocal.), who has, however, taken it from 2 Sam. vii. 8, LXX., 
where Aéyer xvp. wavroxp. introduces the divine utterance. 


Notrs py AMERICAN Eprtor. 


(F5) ‘* Receive the grace of God in vain.” Ver. 1. 


Here Dr. Meyer gives the correct idea of ‘the grate of God’’ in the text by 
quoting the words in Romans: ‘‘ We are not under law, but under grace,’’ i.e., 
not under a legal system where salvation is a reward of merit to be earned by 
good works, but under a gracious system where it isa gratuitous gift of God. 
What then Paul here cautions the Corinthians against is not receiving the rec- 
onciliation and then leading an unchristian life, for there is nothing of this in 
the context, but it is their rejection of the great salvation. To receive the 
grace of God in vain is to have the offer of the great blessing contained in the 
gospel, aud then by refusal or neglect to frustrate its end and aim. 


(a5) The quotation from Isaiah xlix. 8. Ver. 2. 


These words of Dr. Meyer explain not only the ground of this quotation 
-from the Old Testament, but also the reason of many other citations in the 
later Scriptures. The ‘‘servant of the Lord’’ in Isaiah means sometimes 
Messiah the head, and sometimes Israel the body, and thus its various appli- 
cations are satisfactorily understood. 


(H®) ‘* That the ministry be not blamed.” Ver. 3. 


The moral power of a preacher depends almost entirely upon the conviction 
which his hearers have of his sincerity and the purity of his motives. The 
lack of this neither learning nor ability can make good (Hodge). 


(1°) ‘* Fastings.”’ Ver. 5. 


Dr. Meyer’s view is confirmed by the fact that the fastings here mentioned 
fall into the third class as arranged by Bengel: 1. General, afflictions, ete. ; 
2. Special, stripes, ete. ; 3. Voluntary, labours, ete. 


558 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(35) ‘* Ohastened and not killed.’’ Ver. 9. 

It is more in consonance with the general strain of the passage to take 
chastened as = afflicted, since there is no reference to any disciplinary design of 
God in sending the sufferings Paul was called to endure. And this is one of the 
Scriptures which show that the distresses of believers are not always chastise- 
ments, but often sent as opportunities for them to glorify God by their 
patient endurance and steadfast faith. 


(K®) ‘* Not straitened in us,” etc. Ver. 12. 


The simple meaning, without the figure, is, ‘‘The want of love is on your 
side, not on mine.’’ Accordingly, the following verse means, ‘‘Open your 
hearts to the same love that I show to you, which love is my reward.”’ 


(x5) ‘* Not unequally yoked with unbelievers.”’ Ver. 14. 


Many suppose that this precept forbids confessors of Christ to marry those 
who do not confess Him in the use of His sacraments, But it does not mean 
this. The ‘‘unbelievers’’ it refers to were heathen, but there is no reason to 
confound with ignorant idolaters persons who have been born in the pale of 
the church, baptized and religiously educated. It is the union of incongruous, 
uncongenial elements that is forbidden. 


(m>) ‘* The temple of God.” Ver. 16. 


It seems an unhappy nicety in the Revised Version that it puts the word 
temple in both instances of its occurrence in this verse with an indefinite article. 
One can hardly doubt that the Apostle had in view the one temple ; and the 
omission of the article before a noun followed by a genitive denoting some- 
thing belonging to the individual, is common. See Rom. i. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 16, 
and also the original of the phrase ‘‘ living God”’ in this verse. 


(x5) Paul's method of quoting the O. T. Ver. 18. 


Hodge justly remarks that the N. T. writers often quote according to the 
sense and not according to the letter ; they often blend different passages so as 
to give the sense, not of one but of several combined ; and sometimes they ex- 
press not the meaning of any passages in particular, but the general sense of 
Scripture, or what it as a whole certainly teaches. This latter is the case here. 


. 


CHAP. VII. 559 


CHAPTER VIL. 


Ver. 3. Forthe order rpd¢ katadkp, ob Aéyo (Lachm.) even the testimony of 
BC ®& is not sufficient as against all the vss. and most of the Fathers. — Ver. 
8. Instead of the second ¢ kai, B has e dé cai, and the ydp after Biérw is 
omitted by B D* Clar. Germ. (put in brackets by Lachm.); the Vulgate has_ 
read #Aérwr (without yap), and Riickert wishes to restore the text accordingly : 
ei 08 Kai peTepeddunv BAéTwr OTL... bude, vov yaipw. But the Recepta has far 
preponderant attestation, and the variations are easily explained from it. It 
was rightly seen that with « «ai wetew. there starts a new portion of the dis- 
course (whence in B dé was inserted as an adversative conjunction), and either 
the apodosis was already begun at 3Aé7w, whence followed the omission of ydp, 
or it was rightly perceived that the apodosis only began with viv yaipwo, and 
so BAérwv was substituted as a gloss for BAérw yap. — Ver. 10. Instead of the 
first xatepyaverat, Lachm. Riick. Tisch. have only épydfera:, folowing B C D E 
8* 37, Justin. Clem. Or. (thrice), Chrys. Dam. Rightly ; the compound has crept 
in on account of the one following (comp. also ver. 11); it is (in opposition to 
Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 48) too rash to conclude from ver. 11 that Paul 
wrote xatepy., for there, after the previous xarepy., the compound might pre- 
sent itself, naturally and unsought, to the apostle, even if he had used the 
simple form in the first half of ver 10.— Ver. 11. iudc] is to be deleted as a 
supplementary insertion, with Lachm. and Riick., following BCF G S* 17, 
Boern. Ambrosiast. Aug. — év r@ rpdyuari] The év is wanting in witnesses of 
importance ; bracketed by Lachm. and Riick.; deleted by Tisch. An explana- 
tory addition to the dative. — Ver. 12. oidé] B &** 37, 73 have adv’ odé, an 
error of the copyist. —r7v orovd7yv juov thy brép buov] BC D** EK L and 
many min., also Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Germ. Damasce. Oec. have tiv on, iuov ! 
tT. br?p juov. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. 
Rejected on account of the sense by Riick. and Hofm. But it is precisely the 
apparent impropriety in the sense of this reading which has given rise to the 
Recepta, just as tpdc dude seemed also unsuitable, and is therefore wanting in Syr. 
Erp. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Ambrosiast. Pel. Lachmann’s reading appears, therefore, 
to be the correct one ; it is defended also by Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 367. — 
Ver. 13. mapakekAnucOa éxt TH TapakAjoes buav’ mepiocotépwc¢ dé waAAov] Lachm. 
Tisch. and Riick, read : rapakexAnueOa’ Eri O& TH TapakAnoel Huov TEpLoc. UG/Aov, 
according to considerably preponderating attestation. Rightly; the ézi, 
twice taken in the same sense, caused én rj wapaxd, judv to be attached to 
rapakekAnuecba, and hence the position of dé to be changed ; and now the sense 
further demanded the change of 7uév into tudv. The Recepta is defended by 
Reiche. — Ver. 14. 7 kavynowe Huov 7 ert T.] tudv for 7uév (Lachm.) is supported 
only by B F, with some vss. and Theoph. A mechanical repetition of vuov 


1 §o also &, which, however, has txay again instead of nuav, obviously through a 
copyist’s error, which is also found in D* F. 


560 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


from what precedes. — Ver. 16. The od» (Elz.) after yaipw is deleted, as a con- 
nective addition, by Griesb. and the later editors on decisive evidence. 


Ver. 1 closes the previous section. — Since we accordingly (according to 
vi. 16-18) have these promises (namely, that God will dwell among us, receive 
us, be our Father, etc.), we wish not to make them null in our case by an 
immoral life. —-ratrac] placed at the head, bears the emphasis of the im- 
portance of the promises. — xafapiowpev éavrotc| denotes the morally purifying 
activity, which the Christian has to exert on himself, not simply the keeping 
himself pure (Olshausen). He who has become a Christian has by his faith 
doubtless attained forgiveness of his previous sins (Rom. iii. 23-25), 1s rec- 
onciled with God and sanctified (comp. v. 19 ff., and see on Acts xv. 9) ; 
but Paul refers here to the moral stains incurred in the Christian condition, 
which the state of grace of the regenerate (1 Pet. i. 22 f.) as much obliges 
him to do away with again in reference to himself (Rom. vi. 1 ff., viii. 12 
ff.), as by the power of God (Phil. ii. 12, 13) it makes him capable of doing 
so (Rom. vi. 14, viii. 9). And no one forms an exception in this respect ; 
hence Paul includes himself, with true moral feeling of this need placing 
himself on an equality with his readers. —oapkd¢ kat rvebuatoc| The Chris- 
tian is in the flesh, i.e. in the material-psychical part of his nature, stained 
by fornication, intemperance, and such transgressions and vices as directly 
pollute the body (which ought to be holy, 1 Cor. vi. 13 ff., vii. 34) ; and 
his spirit, i.e. the substratum of his rational and moral consciousness, the 
seat of the operation of the Divine Spirit in him and therewith the bearer 
of his higher and eternal life (1 Cor. ii. 11, v. 3; Rom. viii. 16), is stained 
by immoral thoughts, desires, etc., which are suggested to him by means 
of the power of sin in the flesh, and through which the spirit along with 
the voice is sinfully affected, becomes weak and bound, and enslaved to sin 
(comp. on Rom. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 23), The two do not exclude, but include 
each other. Observe, further, that Paul might have used cépartoc instead 
of capxé6c ; but he puts capxéc, because the flesh, in which the principle of 
sin has its seat and hence the fomes peccati lies, serves as the element to 
which every bodily defilement ethically attaches itself. This is based on 
the natural relation of the capé to the power of sin, for which reason it is 
never demanded that the cdpé shall be or become holy, but that the body 
(1 Cor, vii. 34) shall be holy through the crucifixion of the flesh, through 
putting off the old man, etc. (Col. ii. 11). By these means the Christian 
no longer lives év capi (Rom. viii. 8 f.) and xara odpxa, and is purified from 
everything wherewith the flesh is sozled;; comp. 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Rom. viii. 
13, xii. 1. The surprising character of the expression, to which Holsten 
especially takes objection (see 2. Huang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387), is dis- 
posed of by the very consideration that Paul is speaking of the regenerate ; 
in their case the dusts of the cdpé in fact remain, and the cap is defiled, if 
their lusts are actually gratified. Calovius, we may add, rightly observes : 
‘Cex illatione etiam apostolica a promissionibus gratiae ad studium novae 
obedientiae manifestum est, doctrinam apostolicam de gratuita nostri justi- 
ficatione et in filios adoptione non labefactare pictatis et sanctitatis studium, 


CHAP. VII., 2. 561 


sed ad illud excitare atque ad obedientiam Deo praestandam calcar addere.” 
— On podvopudc, comp. Jer. xxiill. 15 ; 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ; 2 Macc. v. 27; Plut. 
Mor. p. 779 C. — éxitedovvre¢ dywotvyv| This is the positive activity of the 
cabapivery éavtote : while we bring holiness to perfection (vill. 6) in the fear of 
God. To establish complete holiness in himself is the continual moral en- 
deavour’ and work of the Christian purifying himself. Comp. Rom. vi. 
22. —év $68 Geov| 1s the ethical, holy sphere (Eph. v. 21) in which the 
éxitedeiv dyiwo. Must move and proceed. (0°) Comp. Rom. xi. 19-22, and 
already Gen. xvii. 1. Thus the apostle closes the whole section with the 
same ethical fundamental idea, with which he had begun it at ch. v. 11, 
where, however, it was specifically limited to the executor of the divine 
judgment. 

Vv. 2-16. Regarding the impression made by the former Epistle and its 
result. A conciliatory outpouring of love and ¢onfidence serves as intro- 
- duction, vv. 2-4. Then an account how Paul received through Titus the 
comforting and cheering news of the impression made by his Epistle, vv. 
5-7. True, he had saddened the readers by his Epistle, but he regrets it 
no longer, but rejoices now on account of the nature and effect of this sad- 
dening, vv. 8-12. Therefore he is calmed, and his joy is still more height- 
ened by the joy of Titus, who has returned so much cheered that Paul saw 
all his boasts to Titus regarding’ them justified. He is glad to be of good 
courage in everything through them, vv. 13-16. 

Ver. 2. Having finished his exhortation, vi. 14—vii. 1, he now repeats the 
same request with which in vi. 13 he had introduced that exhortation 
(rAativOyre bueic), using the corresponding expression ywpfoate yuac : take us, 
i.e. receive us, give us room in your heart (comp. Mark ii. 2; John ii. 6, xxi. 
25; 4 Macc. vii. 6; Herod. iv. 61; Thue. li. 17. 3; Eurip. Hipp. 941), 
and then adds at once (without the medium of a ydp) in lively emotion the 
reason why they had no cause whatever to refuse him this request (orevoyo- 
psiobat év Toig orAdyyvorc, comp. Vi. 12). Chrysostom rightly as to substance 
explains the figurative yopyoare by giAgoare ; and Theophylact : déacbe juac 
Thatéwc, Kal py oTevoxywpouefa év buiv. Comp. Theodoret. So also most of 
the later commentators, though the meaning was often limited in an arbi- 
trary way (comp. Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, and Pelagius), e.g.: give ear to 
us, and the like. Others take it: understand us rightly (Bengel, Storr, 
Bretschneider, Riickert, de Wette). Unobjectionable from a linguistic 
point of view (see Wetstein, ad Matt. xix. 11) ; but in the exhortation of 
ver. 1 there was nothing to be misunderstood, just as little as for the readers 
in the disclosure that follows (to which de Wette refers it) ; and if Paul, 
as Riickert thinks, had had it in his mind that the directions of his first 
Epistle had been judged unfavourably, he could not have expected any 
reader to gather this from the simple ywpfoate juac, especially as in what 


1 Although with this the moral perfection _ striving towards the goal at which ‘‘finis 
itself, which the ideal injunction of it re- coronat opus.’”” Comp. Bengel. The success 
quires, is never fully reached. It is‘*non is of God (Phil. i. 6), the fear of whom 
viae, sed metae et patriae’ (Calovius) ; but guides the Christian. 
the Christian labours constantly at it, 


562 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


follows the idea of the effects of the first Epistle is quite kept at a distance 
by ovdéva érdcovertioauev.' — ovdéva ndukhoauev «.7.A.] This is no doubt aimed 
at hostile calumniations of the apostle and his companions. Some one must 
have said : They act wrongly towards the people! they ruin them, they enrich 
themselves from them! It is impossible to prove that é¢eipauev applies ex- 
actly to the corruptela quae jit per falsam doctrinam (Calvin and most, fol- 
lowing the Fathers ; just as Hofmann also refers it to the inward injuring 
of the persons themselves, 1 Cor, iii. 17) ; the way in which the word is as- 
sociated with jdccjo. and émAeovext. is rather in favour of a reference to the 
outward position. In how many ways not known to us more precisely may 
the apostle and his fellow-labourers have been accused of such a ruining of 
others! How easily might such slanders be based on the strictness of his 
moral requirements, his sternness in punishing, his zeal for collections, his 
lodging with members of the church, the readiness to make sacrifices which 
he demanded, and the like! Probably his prosecution and administration 
of the collections woula be especially blackened by this reproach of zAco- 
vextelv. Comp. xii. 17, 18. Riickert refers all three words to the contents 
of the former Epistle : ‘‘ with what I wrote you, I have done no one wrong,” 
etc. ; so that 7#dvc. would refer to the severe punishment of the incestuous 
person, é¢@e/p. to his delivery over to Satan, and émieovexr. to the control 
which Paul by this discipline seemed desirous to exercise over the trans- 
gressor and over the church. But if his readers were to know of this refer- 
ence to his former Epistle, he must have expressed it (the reader could not 
guess it). Besides, the word érAeovexr. is against this view, for in the N. T. 
it denotes overreaching for one’s own benefit as an act of covetousness properly 
so called, provided the context (as in ii. 11, by i76 rot Sarava) does not furnish 
a more general reference. And, moreover, those acts of discipline, to 
which Paul is supposed to refer, were acts so completely personal on the 
part of the apostle, that the plural expression in our passage would be quite 
unsuitable. — oidéva] in the consciousness of innocence is with great empha- 
sis prefixed three times ; but we cannot, with Riickert, infer from this that 
the incestuous person is concealed under it. Comp. mdvre¢ and ravra, 1 
Cor. xii. 29, xiii. 7; Buttm. newt. Gram. p. 341 [E. T. 398]. 

Ver. 3. Not for the sake of condemning do TI say it, namely, what was said in 
ver. 2. I do not wish thereby to express any condemnatory judgment, asif, 
although we have done wrong to no one, etc., you failed in that love to which 
yophoare juac lays claim. Kardxpiow was taken of the reproach of covetous- 
ness (so Theodoret, and comp. Emmerling and Neander), but this is an ar- 
bitrary importation into the word. According to Riickert, rpd¢ xatraxprow is 
not to be supplemented by iuév, but Paul wishes here to remove the unpleas- 
ant impression of ver. 2, in which he confirms the severity of his former. 
Epistle, so that there is to be regarded as object of xatdxpiore primarily the 
incestuous person, and secondarily the whole church, in so far as it has 
acted towards this man with unchristian leniency. This explanation falls to 


1This also in opposition to de Wette’s Epistle. For such imputation I have given 
way of completing the thought: ‘‘ Impute you no occasion in my apostolic conduct. 
no evil designs to me in writing the first I have wronged no one,”’ ete. 


CHAP. VII., 4. 563 


the ground with Riickert’s view of ver. 2 ; the éoré that follows puts it be- 
yond doubt that iuvév is really to be supplied with rpd¢ xaraxp. for its expla- 
nation. According to de Wette, ob 7. xardxp. 2. applies in form, no doubt, to 
ver. 2, but in substance more to the censure, of which the expostulatory tone 
of ver. 2 had created an expectation ; in other words, it applies to something 
not really said, which is arbitrary, since what was said was fitted sufficiently 
to appear as kataxpcovc. — rpoeipyxa yap] for I have said before (vi. 11 f.), antea 
dixi, as 3 Macc. vi. 35, 2 Macc. xiv. 8, and often in classical writers. Comp. 
Eph. iii. 3. This contains the proof that he ov rpdc¢ catdxpiow Aéyer ; for, if 
he spoke now unto condemnation, he would contradict his former words. — 
ore év Talc kapd. x.t.A.] Comp. Phil. 1. 7. In vi. 11 f. he has expressed not 
these words, but their sense. By his adding the definition of degree, éi¢ rd 
ovvaro@. x.7.A., Paul becomes his own interpreter. — éi¢ 7d cvvarobaveiv Kai 
ovcqv| is usually taken (see still Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, also Osiander, 
who, however, mixes up much that is heterogeneous) as : so that I would die 
and live with you, and this as ‘‘ vehementissimum amorisindicium, nolle nec 
in vita nec in morte ab eo quem ames separari,”’ Estius, on which Grotius 
finely remarks : ‘‘ egregius yapaxryp boni pastoris, Joh. x. 12.” Compari- 
son is made with the Horatian tecwm vivere amem, tecum obeam lubens (Od. iii. 
9. 24), and similar passages in Wetstein. But against this may be urged 
not only the position of the two words, of which the cuvazofaveiv must logi- 
cally have been put last, but also the perfectly plain construction, according 
to which the subject of éore must also be the subject of cuvar. and ovlav : you 
are in our hearts in order to die and to live with (us),* i.e. in order not to depart 
from our hearts (from our love) in death, if it is appointed to us to die, and 
in life, if it is appointed to us to remain in life. For he, whom we love, 
dies and lives with us, when regarded, namely, from the idea of our heartfelt 
love to him, and from our sympathetic point of view feeling this conscious- 
ness of love which has him always present to our heart—a consciousness ac- 
cording to which we, dying and living, know him in our hearts as sharing 
death and life with us. And how natural that Paul, beset with continual 
deadly perils (vi. 9), should have put the ovvarofaveiv jirst ! in which case ovf jv 
is to be referred to eternal life just as little as Céwev in vi. 9 (Ambrosiaster, 
comp. Osiander). Hence the thought can as little surprise us, and as little 
appear ‘‘tolerably meaningless” (de Wette), as the conception of alter ego. 
Hofmann, too, with his objection (‘‘ since they, nevertheless, in fact do not 
die with him,” etc.) mistakes the psychological delicacy and thoughtfulness 
of the expression ; and wishes to interpret it—which no reader could have 
hit on (especially as zpoeip. does not point back further than to vi. 11)—from 
vi. 9 and iv. 11 to the effect that the life of the apostle isa continual dying, 
in which he yet remains always in life, and that consequently it is his life so 
constituted which the readers share, when they are in his heart. 

Ver. 4. A further, and that a psychological, proof for the od mp. kardxp. 
iéyw. — rappyoia is the internal frame of mind, the good joyous confidence (see 


1 There is no justification for departing in any passage from the ¢elic reference of ets 
with the infinitive. Comp. on viii. 6. 


564 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


on Eph. iii. 12), without which no katyyoic, no self-boasting for the sake of 
the readers, would outwardly take place (izép, as in v. 12, vill. 24). To 
take it of the libertas loquendi (Pelagius, Beza, Luther, Vatablus, Cornelius 
a Lapide, and many others, including Schrader and Ewald) is inappropriate, 
because by the zappycia in this Sense there would be no negation of xpic 
karakp. déyew. And the taking the cabynow of inward boasting before Cod 
(Osiander), ought to have been precluded by ver. 14, comp. ix. 3.—7erAnp. 
x.7.A.| The two clauses form a climax, so that werd. is correlative with 
breprep. and rapaxa. with yapd. In the use of the article with rapaxa. and 
xapt Paul already looks to the special comfort and joy, of which he intends 
to speak further (ver. 7). The dative of the instrument (as at 2 Macc. vi. 5, 
vil. 21-; 8 Macc. iv. 10) is used with wAyp. in the N. T. also at Rom. i. 29, 
and in classic Greek, though seldom. See Elmsley, ad Soph. Oed. Col. 
16 ; Blomfield, Gloss. Aesch. Agam. 163 ; Bernhardy, p. 168. Comp. also 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 209. —dtreprepioceboua| Tam exceeding richly pro- 
vided with, Mosch. vi. 13 ; comp. the passive in Matt. xiii. 12, -xxv. 29. The 
present sets forth the thing as still continuously taking place. — éxi racy Ty 
OAinber nu. | does not belong to ry yapa, but to both the entire statements reAnp. 
TH TapakA. and ireprepioc. TH Yapa ; and éwi is not, as Grotius thought, post, 
as in Herod. i. 45: én’ éxeivn tH cvudopH (see, generally, Wurm, ad Dinarch. 
p. 39 f.), since (comp. 1. 83-11) the tribulation still continues, but 27, at. See 
Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 490]. 

Ver. 5. In all our tribulation, I say, for even after we had come to Mace- 
donia we had no rest.— In this «ai, even, Paul refers back to what was 
stated in ii. 12, 13 ; but it does not follow that with Flatt we should regard 
what lies between as a digression. —éoyyxev] as in 11.13. Still BFGK 
(not &), Lachmann, have the reading éoyev, which appears to be original 
and altered into accordance with ii. 18. —7 caps judv] our flesh, denotes 
here, according to the connection, the purely human essence as determined 
by its corporeo-psychical nature, in its moral impotence and sensuous ex+ 
citability, apart from the divine rveiua, without whose influence even the 
moral nature of man (the human svevwa with the voic) lacks the capacity 
for determining and governing the ethical life. (p®) Comp. on Rom. iv. 1 ; 
Johniii. 6. The capé with its life-principle the wvyf is by itself morally 
incapable even in the regenerate man, and stands too much in antagonism 
to the divine rvetua (see on Gal. v. 17), not to have unrest, despondency, 
etc., occurring even in him when he confronts the impressions of struggle 
and suffering. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 41. No doubt the expression in this 
passage seems not to agree with the 76 wvebuari mov in ii. 12; but there, 
where, besides, Paul is speaking simply of himself, he speaks only of inward 
unrest, of anxious thoughts in the moral consciousness ; whereas here 
(where he includes also Timothy) he speaks of outward (&€£wbev wdya) and 
inward (éowfev $680c) assaults, so that that. which lies, as it were, in the 
middle and is affected on both sides is the capé.*_ Riickert brings in here 


1 Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 56, has that Paul would have said 7 wWuxH nor. 
wrongly objected to this interpretation He might have done so, but there was no 


GEAR VES Oy 7: 565 


also his groundless hypothesis regarding an illness of the apostle. — 447? év 
- ravrt OALBduevor] Paul continues as if he had written previously : ob jucla 
aveow éxovtec, OY ovK év avécer ucla, OY oby Hovyor jucha, or the like. Quite 
similar departures from the construction are found also in the classics. See 
Matthiae, p. 1293 ; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. i. 7, eidérec, and 
the remark on it. It arises from vividness of excitement as the thought 
proceeds. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 617. Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 256 
[E. T. 298]. — &afev wdyar, éowbev ¢680c] The omission of 7oav gives greater 
prominence tothe short, concise representation. Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Pelagius, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, also Schrader, 
explain éfwfev and éowfev as extra and intra ecclesiam ; and of this various 
interpretations are given ; Chrysostom holding that the former applies to 
unbelievers, the latter to the weak brethren ; Theodoret : that the former 
applies to the false teachers, the latter to the weak brethren ; and Grotius: 
that the former applies to the Jews and heathen, the latter to the false 
teachers. But after 7 cap udv (see above), and on account of 4680, it is 
more in keeping with the context to refer it to the subject: from without 
struggles (with opponents, who may have been Christian or non-Christian), 
Jrom within (from our own minds) fears. The latter are not defined more 
precisely; butit is in keeping with the contrast of yap#va afterwards in ver. 7 
to think of fears regarding the circumstances of the Corinthians, and in par- 
ticular regarding the effect of his former Epistle on them (comp. also ii. 12). 
Hofmann holds, without any basis in the text, that Paul was apprehensive lest 
the conflicts to be undergone by him (probably with the Jews) might de- 
generate into persecutions. 

Vv. 6, 7. Tot¢ rarecvotc| the lowly, i.e. the bowed down. This 6 rapaxarav 
Tove tTarewotc is a general designation of God, significant in its practical 
bearing (comp. i. 3), so that the suffering jueic (in rapexdAecev judc) belong 
to the category of the rarewvol. — 6 bed¢| 18 brought in later by way of attrac- 
tion, because 6 rapaxaAdv . . . rapexddecev yuac were the chicf conceptions. 
Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 1. —év ri rapovoig] through the arrival. 
— Titov] See Introd. § 1. — od pévov dé x.7.4.] A delicate form of transition. 
Not merely through his arrival, not only through the reunion with him did 
God comfort us, but also through the comfort, wherewith he was comforted in 
regard to you (1 Thess. iii. 7) while he announced to us, etc. When Titus in- 
formed us of your desire, etc., this information had so soothing an effect on 
himself that we too were soothed. Comp. Ewald. The usual view, that: 
Paul meant to say : through the comfort which he brought to me, for he related 
to me, etc., and thus wrote with logical inaccuracy, is as arbitrary as Hof- 
mann’s way of escaping the difficulty—for which he adduces erroneously 
‘1 Thess. iii. 10—that it must have run properly (?) in the form of rapaxAnHeic 
avfyyeidev. Certainly Titus had himself been comforted by what he saw in 
Corinth ; but psychologically it was most natural that this ‘‘ being com- 
forted ” on the part of Titus should be repeated and renewed by his com- 


need for it; the odpé rather corresponds with the ¢fo3ev most naturally as that which is 
first affected from without. 


566 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


municating to Paul and Timothy his cheering observations and experiences, 
and so they too were comforted with the comfort which was afforded to 
Titus himself by the report which he was able to give. This interpreta- 
tion—in which there is thus not to be assumed any blending of the comfort 
which Titus had felt in perceiving the improved state of matters at Corinth, 
and then in communicating it (Osiander)—is neither unnatural (Hofmann) 
nor turning on punctilious reflection (de Wette), but founded necessarily on 
the words, which Paul has not written otherwise, just because he has not 
conceived them otherwise. — érimdbyjo.w] longing, namely, to see me again 
among you. — ddupuév] lamentation, for having saddened me so by the 
disorders tolerated in your church, especially in reference to the incest- 
uous person. Comp. vv. 11, 12.—rdv tyav CHAov irép sud] your eager 
interest for me, to soothe me, to obey me, etc. There was no need to 
repeat the article here after ¢7Aov, since we may say CyAovv or CHAov éyewv 
trép tivog (Col. iv. 18), in which case tirép éuod is blended so as to form 
one idea with ¢jA0v. Comp. on Gal. iii. 26 and Fritzschior. Opuse. p. 245.— 
Gore we uarrov yapyvat| so that I was all the more glad. The emphasis is on 
LadAdAov (Magis in Vulgate) ; on its meaning, all the more, comp. Nigelsbach 
on the Iliad, p. 227, ed. 3. The apostle’s joy was made all the greater by 
the information longed for and received, since from it he learned how, in 
consequence of his letter, the Corinthians had on their part now met him 
with so much longing, pain, and zeal. Observe in this the emphatic pre- 
fixing, thrice repeated, of the juév, which gives the key to this waAdov yap7- 
vat. The former Epistle had had its effect. Hehad previously had for them 
longing, pain, zeal ; now, on their part, such longing, etc., had set in for 
him. Thus the position of things had happily changed on the part of the 
church, which before was so indifferent, and in part even worse, in its mood 
towards Paul. Billroth, following Bengel, takes it : so that I rather rejoiced, 
i.e. 80 that my former pain was not merely taken away, but was changed 
into joy. Comp. also Hofmann.’ In this case pnaAAo0v would be potius. But 
the very prefixing of the waAAov, and still more the similarity of ver. 13, are 
against this. —'Theophylact, we may add, has rightly remarked that Paul 
could with truth write as he does in this passage, inasmuch as he wisely 
leaves to the readers the distingue personas. 

Ver. 8 f. Information regarding this a/20v yapy#va, explaining the ground 
of it. With ¢ cat peteuedduny there begins a new protasis, the apodosis of 
which is viv yaipo x.r.4., so that the Biérw yap x.7.A., Which stands between, 
assigns parenthetically the ground of the protasis. or if I have even sad- 
dened you in my Epistle, I do not regret it ; if I did regret it (which I have 
no wish to deny) formerly (and as I now perceive, not without ground, for 
J learn from the accounts of Titus that that Epistle, if even for a short time, 
has saddened you), now I am glad, etc. Comp. Luther ; Rinck, Lueubr. crit. 


1 Who finds the meaning to be: ‘‘that The transition to the first person singular 
with the apostle for his own person the com- is caused simply by the fact, that Paul now 
fort, which he shared with Timothy, rose has in view the rebuke and injunction of 
into joy.’ In that case éué at least must the former Epistle, chap. yv. 
have been used instead of the enclitic pe. 


CHAP, ‘VII., 8: 567 


p- 162, and the punctuation of Lachmann and Tischendorf ; also Kling. 
Only in this way of dividing and interpreting this passage does the explan- 
atory statement advance in a simple logical way (1, I do not regret ; 2, if 
I did previously regret, now I am glad), and the imperfect wereuwed. stand in 
right correlation with the present viv ya/pw, so that peteveAdunv applies to 
the time before the present joyful mood was reached. The common punctua- 
tion, adopted also by Osiander and Hofmann, which connects ¢i xa? pereper. 
with the previous words, and begins a new sentence with viv yaipw, breaks 
asunder the logical connection and the correlation of the parts, and leaves 
Biérw yap x.t.2. (which must be the reason assigned for ob wetauéAopuat, as 
Hofmann also correctly holds, and not for éairyoa iuac, as Olshausen, de 
Wette, and others would make it) without any proper reference. Bengel, 
indeed, wishes to take ¢ cai before rp. &p. elliptically: ‘‘ Contristavit vos, 
inquit, epistola tantummodo ad tempus vel potius ne ad tempus quidem.” 
But it is not the bare ¢ «ai which is thus used elliptically, but ei cai dpa, or 
more often eizep apa, even ei dpa (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 514 ; comp. 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 440 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 521) ; further, rpd¢ dpav 
must have logically stood before ei «ai ; lastly, the thought itself would be 
in the highest degree unsuitable, since Paul could not cast doubt on the 
genuine sadness of the readers (comp. ddvpydv, ver. 7, and see ver. 9 ff.). 
The meaning would not be, as Bengel thinks, 7@ove apostolict plenissimum, but 
in contradiction to the context. Billroth would (and Chrysostom in a 
similar way) bring out a logical grounding of ob werapéAoune by taking BAéro 
as meaning : I take into consideration ;* ‘‘T take into consideration that it 
has saddened you, though only for a short time, as I had intended ; by al- 
lowing yourselves to be saddened, you have shown that you are susceptible 
to amendment” (ii. 2). But in this way everything, in which the proba- 
tive force is supposed to lie, is imported. Thisis the case also with Hofmann, 
who makes (comp. Bengel above) ¢ «ai form by itself alone a parenthetic 
elliptic sentence, but in a concessive sense, so that the import of the whole 
is held to be: ‘‘ Although the Epistle has saddened them, it is a temporary, 
not a permanent, sadness with which it has filled them. This the apostle 
sees, and he therefore does not regret that he has saddened them by it.” 
Paul does not write in this enigmatical fashion ; he would have said intel- 
ligibly : 7% émcor. éxeivy, et Kat édAirgoev buac, mpdc Opav édbrnoev, or, at any rate, 
have added to ¢ «ai the appropriate verb (comp. ver. 12). Such an elliptic 
ei kai is as unexampled as that which is assumed by Bengel, and both serve 
only to misconstrue and distort the meaning of the words. Riickert comes 
nearest to our view ; he proposes to read Aérwv (as also Lachmann, Praef. 
p- Xii., would), and to make the meaning : ‘‘ That I have thus saddened you 
I do not regret, but although I regretted it (ei 6& kat wetiperdunrv) when I saw 
that that Epistle had caused you . . . sadness, still I am glad now,” etc. But 
apart from the very weak attestation for the reading BAérwv, and apart also 
from the fact that ¢ dé «ai would be although, however, not but although, Brérwv 


1 Camerarius already took it as hocintueor mnosco (Rom. vii. 23). Comp. Jacobs, ad 
et considero. It is simply animadverto, coq- Anthol. If. 3, p. 203. 


568 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


. éAbrnoev buacg would only contain a very superfluous and cumbrous 
repetition of the thought already expressed in the acknowledgment ¢i kai 
éAbrjoa buac, Since BAéxwov would not apply to the insight gained from the 
news brought by Titus. Ewald has the peculiar view, which is simply an 
uncalled for and arbitrary invention, that Paul intended to write : for I see 
that that Epistle, though it saddened you for a short time, has yet brought 
you toa right repentance ; but feeling this to be unsuitable, he suddenly 
changed the train of thought and went on: Jam now glad, etc. Neander 
has a view quite similar.—On zpd¢ dépav, comp. Philem. 15; Gal. ii. 5. 
The clause ‘‘ although for a short time” is here a delicately thoughtful addi- 
tion of sympathetic love, which has in view the fact that the sadness caused 
by it will only last wp to the receipt of the present Epistle, which is intended 
to assure the readers of the apostle’s pardon and joy (comp. ii. 4 ff.). 


Remarx.—Some make an alteration in the meaning of ¢ kal weteweddounrv: 
eliamsi poenituissel (Erasmus, Castalio, Vatablus, and others, including Flatt) ; 
or hold that poenitere is here equivalent to dolorem capere (Calvin, comp. 
Grotius) ; or suggest explanations such as: ‘‘Non autem dolere potuit de 
eo guod scripgerit cum severitate propter schismata ... ; hoc enim omne 
factum instinctu divino per §eorvevoriav ; sed quod contristati fuerint epistola 
sua et illi, quos illa increpatio adeo non tetigit,’’ Calovius (comp. Grotius) ; 
or the more ingenious device of Beza: ‘ut significet apostolus, se ex epistola 
illa acerbius scripta nonnullum dolorem cepisse, non quasi quod fecerat 
optaret esse infectum, sed quod clementis patris exemplo se ad hance sever- 
itatem coactum esse secum gemens, eventum rei expectaret.” But these are 
forced shifts of the conception of mechanical inspiration. The Theopneustia 
does not put an end to the spontaneity of the individual with his varying 
play of human emotions ; hence Wetstein is so far right in remarking ; “ Inter- 
pretes, qui putant, et consilium scribendi epistolam (rather of writing in so hard a 
vein of chastisement), et ejus consilii poenitentiam, et poenitentiae poenitentiam ab 
afflatu Spir. sancti fuisse profectam, parum consentanea dicere videntur.’’ Not as if 
such alternation of moods testified against the existence of inspiration ; but it 
attests its dependence on the natural conditions of the individual in the mode 
of its working, which was not only different in different subjects, but was not 
alike even in individuals where these were differently determined by outer and 
inner influences ; so that the divine side of the Scripture does not annul the 
human, or make it a mere phantom, nor can it be separated from it mechani- 
cally. It is indissolubly blended with it. (Q°) 


Ver. 9. Niv yaipw] see on ver. 8. To take the viv not in a temporal, but 
in a causal sense (proinde, jam vero, with Emmerling and Billroth), is quite 
at variance with the context, because the thought is implied in the previous 
clause : I no longer regret it. —ovy bre éAvr.] not regarding the sadness caused 
to you in itself. — xara bedv| according to God, i.e. in a way in keeping with 
the divine will. Seeon Rom. viii. 27. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘* Seewndum 
hic significat sensum animi Deum spectantis et sequentis.” Not: by God’s 
operation, which (in opposition to Hofmann) Paul never expresses by xara 
(nor yet is it so even in 1 Pet. iv..6) ; with the Greeks, however, xara Gedy 


CHAP Vili, 10: o69 


means according to divine disposal. — iva év pydevi Cyutwl. &£ judy] not : ita ut, 
etc. (so Riickert), but the divinely-ordained aim of the previous é/ur#Ayre 
kara Gedy : in order that ye in no point (comp. vi. 3; Phil. i. 28 ; Jas. i. 4), 
in no sort of way (not even in the way of severe, saddening reproof), should 
have hurt (injury as to the Messianic salvation) from us, from whom, in fact, 
only the furtherance of your true welfare ought to proceed. See ver. 10. 
According to Osiander, év pjdevi means: in no part of the Christian life 
(neither in the joyfulness of faith nor in purity of morals). At variance with 
the context : for to the matters negatived by év uydevi must belong the Abr 
itself caused by him, which, ‘had it not occurred xara 6edv, would have injured 
the cwrnpia of the readers (ver. 10). —The clause of purpose is to be con- 
nected with the aur. y. xara Oe6v immediately preceding, which is no paren- 
thetic remark, but is the regulative thought controlling what follows (in 
vv. 10, 11) ; wherefore iva x.t.A. is not, with Hofmann, to be attached to 
édum. ei¢ weTavo.ay. 

Ver. 10. Ground assigned for iva éy pend. Cyuiw. EF yuov. for godly sadness 
works repentance unto salvation unregretted, i.e. unto the Messianic salvation, 
the attainment of which is not regretted. The connection of averauéA. with 
cwtnpiav is held by Augustine and other Latin Fathers, following the Vul- 
gate, which has stabilem,’ and among modern expositors by Fritzsche, 
Billroth (yet doubtfully), Schrader, de Wette, Ewald ; decidedly by Cas- 
talio also, but undecidedly by Erasmus, Annot. The more common connec- 
tion is with werdvoray, so as to give the antanaclasis poenitentiam non poeniten- 
dam (for similar collocations see Wetstein, comp. Pliny, Hp. vii. 10) ; otdelc 
yap gavtov Katayvecerat, sav Aven 80’ duaptia, sav revOhon Kad gavtdv ouvtpidy, 
Chrysostom. But for such an antanaclasis Paul would not have chosen an 
adjective from quite a different root, but azeravé;rov (Lucian, Abd. 11, comp. 
also Rom. ii. 5), which is also the reading’® of some minor authorities. 
And if awetaué2. were to belong to werdvocar, it would stand immediately by 
its side, so as to make ele cwrypiay appear as the result throwing light upon 
aperapéA. When placed after ei¢ cuwrnpiav, auerauéd. is an epithet of wetrdvocav 
no longer suitable, insipid, and halting. Olshausen and Hofmann wrongly 
object that the epithet is not suitable to the idea of salvation, the absolute 
good. It expresses by way of litotes the eternal satisfaction of the cwrnpia, 
and is selected with a glance back to what was said in ver. 8. (R°) If the 
apostle, namely, has caused a sadness which works a contrition unto a sal- 
vation exposed to no regret, it is obvious how this step of his can no longer 
give rise to any regret in his case, but can only make him joyful. Comp. 
on the expression itself, Rom. xi. 29, and especially Plato, Tim. p. 59D: 
dperapéAnrov jdovayv xrata, Legg. ix. p. 866E ; Polyb. xxi. 9. 11; Plutarch, 
Mor. p. 187 B; Socrates in Stob. 101, p. 552; Clem. Cor. I. 2. — dé rob 
kéapov Abry] i.e. the sadness, however, which is felt by the world, by the ungod- 
ly-minded unbelievers. This is certainly Airy did yphuata, dia ddEav, Sea Tdv 
aredévta x.T.2. (Chrysostom), in so far, namely, as the loss of outward 


1 According to the reading a&meraBAnrov, 2 And which (in opposition to Osiander) 
which Origen has (once), but Uefore «is would have expressed the idea of some- 
ToOTNp, thing painful quite as well as averapéa, 


570 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


advantage in and for itself determines the sadness,’ but the genitive roi 
xéouov is the genitivus subjecti, and we must retain as the characteristic of 
this Aimy that it is not xara Oedv (because it cannot be determined by the 
knowledge of God and of His will) ; hence, instead of working repentance 
unto salvation, it works despondency, despair, exasperation, obduracy, etc., 
unto death. Even 6:d ypfuara x.7.2. there may be a sadness kata bedv. — 
Gavarov| t.e. not generally : ‘‘ all that is embraced in a state of things not 
founded on God” (Hofmann), but, as the opposite of that unregretted 
cournpia, eternal death, the Messianic azédAea ; comp. ii. 16. Calovius says 
aptly : ‘‘quia mundus dolet, cum affligitur, solatii ex verbo Dei expers ac 
fide destitutus.” The exposition of vexing oneself to death (Theodoret), or 
the reference made by Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others to Fatal diseases and 
suicide, is quite at variance with the context ; and Ecclus. xxxviii. 18 has 
no bearing here. Even the ethical view (moral ruin through despair or new 
sins, de Wette, comp. Neander) is not in keeping with the contrast to 
curnpia ; besides, Paul never uses Oavaro¢ of ethical death. See on Rom. v. 
12.—Regarding the difference between épyaferas and katepyag. (bring to pass), 
see on Rom. i. 27 ; van Hengel, ad Rom. I. 10. 

Ver. 11. What has just been said of the godly sorrow is now proved by 
experience from the instance of the readers themselves. or see, this very 
thing (nothing else), the having been afflicted with godly sorrow, etc. The 
emphatic use of the preparatory rovro before infinitives is very common in 
classic writers. See Kiihner, II. p. 330; Breitenb. ad Xen. Oec. 14. 10. — 
tuiv| not : among you, but: vobis. —orovdsv] activity, namely, to efface and 
make amends for the offence, as opposed to their previous negligence in re- 
gard to the incestuous person. —4aiid] yea rather, imo, corrective, and 
thereby advancing beyond the last idea (comp. 1 Cor. ili. 2 ; John xvi. 2). 
Paul feels that he has said too little by using orovdf#v. The co-ordinate rep- 
etition of a444 before each point lays on each a special emphasis. Comp. 
on 1 Cor. vi. 11. —darohoyiar] rpd¢ éué, Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly 
say ; but we must at the same time observe that they have answered for 
themselves in the first instance to Titus, and through him to Paul (that they 
were not partakers in the guilt of the incestuous person). Billroth under- 
stands the de facto exculpation by the adjudging of punishment to the 
transgressor. An arbitrary view, and opposed to the context (éxdixyjovyr). 
Ewald, in accordance with his assumption of a letter in reply now lost, re- 
fers it to the latter. — ayavdakryow] displeasure, vexation, that such a disgrace- 
ful thing had been carried on in the church. — ¢éfov] ‘‘ne cum virga veni- 
rem” (Bengel), namely, in the event of the state of things not being 
amended (1 Cor. iv. 21), or even of new transgressions. Comp. Chrysostom 
and Theophylact. The explanation : fear of God’s punishments (Pelagius, 
Calvin, Flatt, Olshausen), is at variance with the context (éi7é6y0.). — 
éxir60.| as in ver. 7, longing after the apostle’s coming. — ¢#Aov] not as in 
ver. 7, where iép éuov is associated with it, but, as is suggested by the fol- 


1 As this would have been the case also Comp. Elwert in the Wiirtemberg. Stud. IX. 
with the Corinthians, if they had grieved 15 Dlso ihe 
over the reproof only, and not over the sin. 


OHAP,. ‘VIT,, 12. 571 
lowing éxdixyow (punishment of the transgressor) : disciplinary zeal against 
the incestuous person, not zeal in general for the honour of Christ, of the 
church, and of the apostle (Osiander). The six objects introduced by a2 
go logically in pairs, so that amojoy. and ayavaxr. relate to the disgrace of 
the church, ¢é8ov and érird0. to the apostle, and CjAov and éxdixyow to the 
incestuous person, the latter, however, without the arbitrary distinction 
drawn by Bengel, that ¢7Ao0v refers to the good of his soul, and éxdcc. only to 
his punishment for his transgression. (¢7Ao¢ is the zeal for both. — év ravri 
ovveotnoate K.7.A.| a judgment on the whole matter added asyndetically, and 
so with the more weight (Dissen, ad Pind. Eve. II. p. 278) : in every respect 
you have proved that you yourselves wre innocent as regards the matter in ques- 
tion. By this ‘the Corinthians are acquitted from positive participation in 
the offence ; they could not be acquitted (comp. 1 Cor. v. 6) of a negative 
participation (through toleration and connivance), but this is not further 
touched on in accordance with his purpose, which is here throughout con- 
ciliatory. — éavtoic| you for your own person, as opposed to the evil-doer. — 
On ovviornut, with the accusative and infinitive, comp. Diod. Sic. i. 96, xiv. 
45. Without eivas (comp. Gal. ii. 18) the attribute would appear as purely 
objective, as the proved fact ; with eiva the expression is subjective, denoting 
the relation from the standpoint of the readers. Comp. in general, Kriiger, 
§ 65, 1. 4. —The dative r@ rpdyware is that of ethical reference, expressing 
the matter with respect to which what is affirmed takes place. See Matthiae, 
p. 876 ; Bernhardy, p. 84. Comp. éAcifepo . . . Ti dixacootvy, Rom. vi. 20 ; 
Matt. v. 8. This, at the same time, in opposition to Riickert’s assertion 
that év (see the critical remarks) cannot be dispensed with. On the term 
itself, Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘ indefinite loquitur de re odiosa.”” Comp. 
ii. 5 ff. 

Ver. 12. “Apa] therefore, for how natural was it for the readers to think 
that Paul had written on account of the ad:xjoavtoc and on.account of the 
adixndévtog | And yet the effect which that part of the Epistle had produced 
on themselves had showed them by experience that the apostle’s trwe pur- 
pose was quite different. So at least Paul represents the matter in a delicate 
and conciliatory way. —<¢ cai éypawa bpiv| if I have also written to you, i.e. 
have not kept silence, but have expressed myself by letter regarding the 
affair in question. Commonly a so, so sternly, or the like, is imported quite 
arbitrarily. Grotius indicates the right meaning : ‘‘si quid scripsi, nempe 
ea de re.” Comp. Osiander. Those who assume an Epistle now lost be- 
tween our first and second (Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld) 
find it here alluded to. Comp. ii. 8, 9. The apodosis already begins at ovy 
eivekev k.t.2., and does not follow only at dia rovro (as Hofmann complicates 
it, without sufficient ground), the more especially as in this construction, 
according to Hofmann, da rovro does not apply to ver. 12—to which it must. 
apply (comp. 1 Thess. iii. 7)—but to ver. 11.—oby. . . a42’] is not non 
tam. . . quam (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, and many others), but non. . . sed. 
Paul denies absolutely that he has written that part of the Epistle on account 
of the two persons mentioned. In the nature of the case, no doubt, he had 
to write against the ad:cjoac, and so indirectly in favour of the adixyfeig 5 but 


572 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


the destined purpose of this letter, as Paul from the true light of his apostolic 
standpoint is aware, lay not in this aim affecting the two persons primarily 
concerned, but in its higher significance as bearing on the church’s relation 
to the apostle : aav civexev tov davepwbjvar K.7.A. (8°) — Regarding the form 
eivexev, see On Luke iv. 18, and Kiihner, I. p. 229, ed. 2. The adcxfoac is the 
incestuous person, and the adixleic his father, as the party grievously injured 
by the son’s incestuous marriage with the step-mother. Theodoret, how- 
ever, is quite arbitrary in supposing from this that he was already dead (xa? 
teOvedc yap HOiKyTO, TIC ebviajc bBpiobelonc). See on 1 Cor. v. 1. This explana- 
tion of the ad:xn$eic seems from the relation of the two participles active and 
passive to be the only natural, and, in fact, necessary one. It is no objec- 
tion that, in the first Epistle, nothing was said at length regarding the father 
and the wrong done to him (see only v. 1), since the censure and ordaining 
of chastisement to the transgressor of themselves practically contained the 
satisfaction to the injured father. Comp. on the passive ddcx. in the sense 
of infringing marriage-rights, Plut. Anton. 9 ; Eurip. Med. 267, 314 ; and 
see in general on advxetv in reference to adultery, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 468 ; 
Abresch, ad Xen. Hph., ed Locella, p. 222. Others (Wolf, Storr, Emmer- 
ling, Osiander, Neander, Maier) think that Paul means himself, in so far as 
he had been deeply injured in his office by that transgression. But this 
mode of designating himself, set down thus without any more precise indi- 
cation, would be strangely enigmatical, as well as marked by want of deli- 
cate tact (as if the readers were not ddixyfévrec, like Paul !), and no longer 
suiting what was already said in ii. 5. The reference of tov aduxyfévtoc to the 
apostle himself would only be right on the assumption that allusion is here 
made to the state of things discussed by Paul in an intermediate letter now 
lost.1 Others (Bengel, comp. Wolf also) think that the Corinthians are 
meant, but the singular is decisive against this view, even apart from the 
unsuitable meaning. Others have even referred tov ddixyo. and Tov adixnO. to 
the adulterer and the adulteress (Theophylact : duddrepos yap adAhrove Hdixnoay) 3 
others, again, have taken row advxn9. as weuter (Heinsius, Billroth), equivalent 
The last is at variance with linguistic usage ; and what 
sort of delicate apostolic tact would it have been, to say that he had not 
written on account of the deed! — GA? civexev «.7.2.] According to Lach- 
mann’s correct reading, as translated also by Luther (see the critical re- 
marks) : but because your zeal for us was to become manifest among you before 
God, i.e. but because I wished to bring it about that the zealous interest which you 
cherish for us should be brought to light among you before God (a religious ex- 
pression of uprightness and sincerity, iv. 2). Comp. on the thought, ii. 9 ; 


to Tov adikhuatoc. 


1 On this assumption Bleek is of opinion 
that Paul, in that lost Epistle, had rebuked 


1864, p. 169, 1865, p. 252, according to whom 
Paul is the aétxnteis, because things had in 


the wanton defiance of the incestuous 
person towards him (comp. also Neander). 
According to Ewald, Paul is the déducndels 
over against the man of reputation in the 
church, who had been endeavouring to de- 
prive him of his repute in it by public accu- 
sations. Comp. Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 


the meanwhile come to a pronounced rejec- 
tion of his apostolic repute. According to 
Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 254, 
Timothy is meant, who was personally in- 
sulted by a spokesman in the ranks of the 
opponents. 


CHAP.. VII.;°13. 573 


mpoc tuac is the simple with you, among you, in the midst of you, in your 
church-life, not exactly in publie meeting of the church (Ewald), which would 
have been indicated more precisely. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. Riickert, with- 
out due ground, finds the meaning of rpdc iwa¢ so ambiguous that he prefers 
the Recepta, according to which the meaning is: because our zealous interest 
Sor you was to become.manifest wpon you before God. Comp. li. 4. Hoffmann, 
who rejects both the Recepta and the reading of Lachmann, and prefers that 
of 8 : 7. orovday budy thy brip budv rpdc budc, takes this rod¢ bude even in a 
hostile sense: ‘‘ You are to show yourselves diligent jor yourselves and 
against yourselves ;” the strict procedure of the church against its adherents 
is on the one hand an acting for themselves (ixép budv), and on the other 


hand an acting against themselves (zpd¢ tuac). This artificial interpretation is 


wrong, because, if zpd¢ could mean contra here, Paul must have written at 
least tyv ixép budy Te kal rpd¢ buac, and because zpd¢ with orovd# (Heb. vi. 11; 
Herod. iv. 11.1 ; Diod. xvii. 114) and with orovddfexv (Dem. 515. 23, 617. 10) 
has not that arbitrarily assumed sense, but the sense of an interest for some 
one, though this is more commonly expressed by zepi. If the reading of & 
were right, it would have to be explained simply : in order that your zeal, in 
which you aim at your own good, should become manifest among you before God. 
Had Paul wished to express the singular meaning which Hofmann imports, 
he would have known how to write : ryv orovdyv iuav tH irép buoy Te Kai 
ka? mov. | 

Ver. 13. Wherefore, because I had no other purpose than this (which is 
now attained), we are comforted ; and, to our consolation there was further 
added a very great increase in joy over the joy of Titus, etc. — émi d& tH mapaka. 
jt. | éxi used of supervening on something already in existence.* See Mat- 
thiae, p. 1871 ; Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 490]. — wepicoor. warAov éxdpyyev] the 
joy of our consolation became still more increased. Comp. on ver. 7. Re- 
garding the strengthening of the comparative by wa/Aov, see Pflugk, ad Hur. 
Hee. 377 ; Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 679 E ; Boissonade, ad Aristaen. 430. 
— ort avaréravra k.t.A.| does not specify the reason of Paul’s joy (Riickert, 
although with hesitation), for that is contained in ém? r. yapé Titov, but is a 
more precise definition confirmatory of 7H yapaé Titov ; since indeed his spirit 
(ii. 13) as refreshed by you all. avaréravtrat (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem. 
7, 20) is placed first as the pith of the thought ; a7é denotes the proceeding 
From, the origin: forth from, from the side of. See Bernhardy, p. 222 ; 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 5. 18. 


RemarKx.—According to the Recepta dia tovto wapakekAjucha Exit TH TapakAjoer 
juav' weptocotépac dé waAdov k.t.4., the first ém is through, properly on account o7, 
just as in éxl tH yapd Titov, so that the rapakAnoic dud is that which causes the 
mapaxexAnueba (Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 491]): but dudy is not, with Flatt, 
de Wette, and many others, to be explained : by the consolation, which you have 
afforded to me, but: ‘* consolatione vestri’’ (Luther, Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, 
Bengel, and most), i.e. by your being comforted over the pain, which my 


1 Yet it may also be taken simply of the tion aboveis more in keeping with the cli- 
state; in our consolation. But the explana- mactic character of the discourse. 


574 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Epistle caused to you, now by means of the happy change which it has pro- 
duced among you (ver. 11). The two genitives, namely iuéyv and Titov, must 
be taken uniformly. On the state of the case delicately denoted by rapaki. av 
Calvin aptly remarks: ‘‘ Nam correctionis acerbitas facile dulcescit, simulatque 
sustare incipimus, quam nobis fuerit utilis.’’ Michaelis, on the other hand, 
objects that what follows will then be discourteous; but the seeming dis- 
courtesy disappears before the reason for Titus’ joy, and is amply outweighed 
by ver. 14. According to Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 370, the mwapdkAnoie tpov 
means the admonitio et castigatio given in the first Epistle, for the sharpness 
and severity of which Paul is now consoled by the happy result. But after 
TrapaxexAnueia, according to the analogy, moreover, of éydpnuev éxl TH Yupy, aS 
well as in accordance with vv. 4 and 6, wupdakAyjoig cannot be otherwise taken 
than as solatium. 


Ver. 14 f. Polite statement of the reason why the joy of Titus had re- 
joiced him so greatly. —e re avTG trép iu. Kexavy.] Comp. ix. 2. Who 
could deny that Paul, both alone, of which he is thinking here, and in 
company with Timothy (at which 7} kabyyou 7yuov then glances), had justly 
boasted before Titus (coram Tito) to the advantage of the Corinthians (iép 
iuov, comp. ix. 2)? See 1 Cor. i. 4 ff. He had, in fact, founded the 
church and laboured so long in it, and they were in his heart, vii. 3. — on 
catnoxtvOyv| This caryoy. would have taken place, if Titus had experienced 
among you an opposite state of things, contradicting the truth of my 
kabynorc. But when he came to you: did rév épywr édeiEaté pov Ta phuara, 
Chrysostom. — 422’ 6¢ mdvra x.t.A.] Opposite of ob Kkatyoy. : ‘as we have 
spoken everything truly to you, our boasting before Titus has also become 
truth.” No doubt Paul is here making a passing allusion to the attack on 
his veracity (comp. i. 17 ff.), and that in such a way as emphatically to 
confront it with, first, what was said by him (rdvta... 7 Kabynowe juor), 
and then the persons to whom he spoke (iyviv... 7 éxt Titov). Thus the 
first, and next to it the last, place in the arrangement of the sentence 
has the emphasis (Ktihner, II. p. 625). —davra] quite general: we have 
lied to youin nothing. Chrysostom and Billroth think that it applies to 
all the good, which Paul had said of Titus to the Corinthians,—a purely arbi- 
trary view, not to be guessed by any reader. —év aAnbcia] t.e. truthfully. 
Comp. Col. i. 6 ; John xvii. 19; Pind. Ol. vil. 127. The adverbial use is 
genuine Greek (Matthiae, p. 1842 ; Bernhardy, p. 211), not a Hebraism 
(Riickert). See on John xvii. 19. — éAadjoaper| locuti sumus, quite general, 
and not to be limited, at variance with the context, to doctrine (Emmerling, 
Flatt, Hofmann, and others, following Theodoret). — éx? Titov] coram 
Tito. See Schaefer, Melet. p. 105; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 1389. — éyevfOn] 
se praestitit ; it has shown itself as truth by. experience. Comp. i. 19; 
Rom. iii. 4, vii. 18. Often so also in classic writers. 

Ver. 15. Kai ra omAdyyva x.t.A.] joyful result of 4 Kabynow judy... 
éyevgm. A comma only is to be put after ver. 14 : and thus, therefore, his in- 
most heart (comp. vi. 12) zs attached to youina still higher degree (than before 
his presence there) since he remembers, etc. — ele buac éoriv | is for you. Comp. 
ei¢ aitév, 1 Cor. vill. 6; Rom. xi. 86.— traxofv] namely, towards him, 


NOTES, aD 


Titus ; for what follows is epexegetical. —yerd ¢éBov x. tpduov]é.e. with a 
zeal, which fears lest it should not do enough for its duty. Comp. on 1 
Cotati. | 

Ver. 16. Concluding result of the whole section, introduced vividly 
(without obv, comp. ver. 12): ‘‘ Iam glad that in every respect I am of good 
courage through you. — év ipyiv] not as to you, which would have been ex- 
pressed prepositionally by repi, irép, éxi, mpdc, évexa (eic, x. 1, is in an ad- 
verse sense), but Paul knows his consolation as cleaving to the readers ; that 
is the causal nexus, in which his joyous frame of mind depends on them. 
Comp. Winer, p. 218 [E. T. 291 f.] ; Soph. Aj. 1294: év éuol Apacic, 1071 : 
év Oavovow bBpiory¢ yévy, Hurip. Or. 754 3 év yuvacsiv adniuoc, Ecclus. xxxviii. 
23 ; Matt. ii. 17. (1°) 


Notts py AMERICAN EpIrTor. 


(0°) “* In the fear of God.’ Ver. 1. 


This is the motive which is to determine our endeavours to purify ourselves. 
It is not regard to the good of others nor our own happiness, but reverence for 
God. We are to be holy because He is holy (Hodge). 


| 


(p®) ** Our flesh had no rest.” Ver. 5. 


Flesh of course cannot mean his body, for the sufferings referred to were not 
corporeal, but mental, The term denotes his whole sensitive nature considered 
as frail. 


(Q°) ** Though I did regret.” Ver. 8. 


The fact that Paul says that he regretted sending a letter, which, however, 
is universally accepted as canonical and inspired, has been considered as casting 
doubt upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. A satisfactory explanation is 
found in the following remarks of Hodge (in loc.): ‘‘ Inspiration rendered its 
subject infallible in writing and speaking as the messenger of God. Paul 
might doubt whether he had made a wise use of his infallibility, as he might 
doubt whether he had wisely exercised his power of working miracles. He 
never doubted as to the truth of what he had written. There is another thing 
to be taken into consideration. Inspiration did not reveal itself in conscious- 
ness. It is perfectly conceivable that a man might be inspired without know- 
ing it. Paul was no doubt impelled by the Spirit to write his former epistle 
as well as divinely guided in writing: but all he was conscious of was his own 
thoughts and feelings. The believer is not conscious of the operations of 
grace, neither were the apostles conscious of inspiration. As the believer, 
however, may know that he is the subject of divine influence, so the apostles 
knew that they were inspired. But as the believer may doubt the wisdom of 
some of his holiest acts, so the apostles might doubt the wisdom of acts done 
under divine guidance. Such acts are always wise, but the agent may not 
always see their wisdom.’’ 


576 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(n°) ** Repentance to salvation not to be repented of.”? Ver. 10. 


The Revised Version (in which this whole chapter is greatly improved) renders 
this clause ‘‘repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret.” 
This view of the connection of the last word is favoured by Kling, Hodge, Princ. 
Brown ; but Beet, Plumptre, and Speaker’s Com. prefer to connect it with salva- 
tion. Still one may ask, What kind of a salvation is it that is or can be attended 
with regret ? 


(s°) ‘* Not for his sake that had done the wrong.” Ver, 12. 


The writer speaks of the chief object as if it were the only object, and also 
of the object which was effected by Providence, as if it had been his object. He 
did desire to have the offender punished and the injured man righted, but the 
primary aim was the manifestation to themselves of their regard for his apos- 
tolic authority and for himself.—The reading your instead of the our of the 
received text is now adopted by all editors, being sustained by greatly prepon- 
derating authority. 


(t°) End of a discussion. Ver. 16. 


Here concludes the long discussion carried on in the first seven chapters of 
the Epistle. The entire pericope relates to the state of the Corinthian believ- 
ers and to Paul’s relation to them. In the course of it he lays bare in the live- 
liest form his intense human sympathies, and reveals much of his personal 
character and history. The result of his faithful dealings with the church was 
the full restoration of confidence. And now he was able to turn to other mat- 
ters, as we see he did in the next chapter. 


CHAP? VILL, Lt. 577 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 3. irép dtvauty] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read rapa divau., on decisive 
evidence ; i7ép isa gloss. — Ver. 4. After dyiove Elz. has dégac8ar dude, which, on 
decisive evidence, is rightly struck out by Griesb. and the later editors as a 
_ supplementary insertion, though defended by Rinck. — Ver. 5. 7Amioauev} Only 
B and 80 have 7Arixauev, just as in ver. 6 only B has évypgato. —Ver. 7. 
&& yuov év buiv is attested only by min. and Syr. Arm. Slav. ms. Comp. Orig. : 
nostra in vos, Error of transcription, or correction through misunderstanding. 
— Ver. 12. After éyy Elz. and Scholz have 7i¢. An addition in opposition to 
decisive evidence. —- Ver. 13. dé] is wanting in B C &* min. and Aeth. 
Clar. Germ. ; deleted by Lachm., and rightly, since it betrays itself as inserted 
to mark the contrast. — Ver. 16. didév74] D E F G L &** and many min. 
Chrys. Theophyl. have dév71. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Riick. 
But the aorist has crept in obviously on account of the aorists that follow. — 
Ver. 19. cojv] BC and many min., also several vss. and Fathers, have év. 
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; ot, 
though defended by Reiche, is an erroneous gloss. —avrov] is wanting in 
BC D* F GLand many min., also in several vss. and Latin Fathers. Sus- 
pected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. Considering the great prepon- 
derance of the adverse evidence, it is more probable that it has crept in by 
writing tov twice, than that it has been left out on account of its being unnec- 
essary and seemingly unsuitable (Reiche). — Instead of the last 7uaov Elz. has 
tuov, against decisive testimony. Alteration, because 7uov was held to be un- 
suitable. — Ver. 21. rpovoovmev yap] Elz. : zpovootuevor, only supported by later 
codd. and some Fathers. The participle appears to be a mere copyist’s error 
occasioned by oreAAduevor, so that at first even the ydp remained beside it, as is 
the case still in C, min., and some vss. and Fathers, whom Tisch. follows. But 
afterwards this ydp had to be dropped on account of the retention of the 
participle. — Ver. 24. évdeiEao%e] Lachm. and Tisch. read évdecxvivevor, following 
B D* E* F G 17, It. Goth. The imperative is a gloss.! — Elz., against decisive 
testimony, has «ai before éi¢ tpéowrov. Added for the sake of connection. 





Chap. viii. and ix. The second chief division of the Epistle : regarding 
the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi.), coming very fitly after 
the praise contained in chap. vii., and having the way appropriately paved 
for it in particular by the closing words, vii. 16. 

' Vy. 1-6. The beneficence of the Macedonians has been shown beyond all 
expectation ; hence we have exhorted Titus to complete among you the 
work already begun. 

Ver. 1. The dé is the mere weraBarixdy, leading over to a new topic in the 


. 1 [Westcott and Hort retain the imperative, and the Canterbury Revision follows them. 
—T. W. C.] 


578 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Epistle. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xv. 1.—rv ydpw Tf. Beod thy 
Sedou. k.t.2.] the grace of God, which is given in the churches of Macedonia, i.e. 
how graciously God has wrought in the churches of Macedonia, inasmuch as 
He (see ver. 2) called forth in them so great liberality. Comp. ix. 14. The 
expression rests on the idea, that such excellent dispositions and resolves 
are produced and nourished, not by independent spontaneity, but by the 
grace of God working on us (operationes gratiae). Comp. Phil. ii. 13. 
Paul, therefore, does not think of the grace of God as shown to himself 
(Origen, Erasmus, who paraphrases it : ‘‘quemadmodum adfuerit mihi Deus 
in ecclesiis Maced. ;’ comp. Zachariae, Emmerling, Billroth, Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 357 ff. ; also Riickert, yet with hesitation),—in which case he 
could not but have added éyoi or juiv, in order to make himself understood, 
—but, on the contrary, as granted to the liberal churches, working in them 
the communicative zeal of love, so that the construction with év is quite as 
in ver. 16 and i. 22. 

Ver. 2. A more precise explanation of ryv ydpiv x.t.A., so that 6rz (that, 
namely) is dependent on yvwpifovev. This exposition consists, as was seen 
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, and many others, 
of two statements, so that after t#¢ yapac avtoy We must mentally supply the 
simple éor:. This scheme of the passage, which Osiander and Hofmann 
also follow, is indicated by 7 reptoceta in the one half, and érepiocevcev’ in 
the other, whereby two parallel predicative relations are expressed, as well 
as by the fact that, if the whole be taken as one sentence, and consequently 
i) TEploo. T. yapac at7ov be taken along with the following kai 7 xara Babove 
atwyela avtov as the subject of érepiccevoev (so by most expositors since Beza), 
this subject would embrace two very diverse elements, and, besides, there 
would result the combination not elsewhere occurring : 7 repioceia érepio- 
cevoev. Hence it is to be explained : that, namely, in much testing of 
affliction the abundance of their joyfulness is, t.e. that, while they are much 
put to the test by sufferings, their joy is plentifully present, and (that) their 
deep poverty became abundant unto the riches of their single-heartedness, i.e. 
that they, in their deep poverty, plentifully showed how rich their single- 
heartedness was. —év moAaAq doxiyum OAupewc|] Instead of writing simply év 
ToAAn OAinbet, Paul designates this situation according to the wholesome 
moral aspect, in which it showed itself amangst the Macedonians to their 
praise. Aoxcufj, namely, is here also not: trial, but, as Paul always uses it, 
verification (Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 18, xiii. 3; Phil. ii, 22). Chrysos- 
tom aptly says : oidé yap arAde éOAiByoar, aA2 obtw¢ O¢ Kai ObKimoe yevéofar dia 
tie brouovyc. The verification of their Christian character, which the 0i)ic¢ 
effected in them, was just the moral element, in which the joyfulness o0AA7 
Kai dgatoc éBAdatyoev év avtoic (Chrysostom), and existed among them in spite 
of the @2/uc itself, which, moreover, would have been calculated to produce 
the opposite of yapd. Regarding the @Atc of the Macedonians, see 1 Thess. 
i. 6, i. 14 ff.; Acts xvi. 20 ff., xvii. 5. The ‘apd, the virtue of Christian 


1 Not#y ; for the present corresponds to _ in the happy state of things thus subsisting, 
the perfect dedou., and that, which took place is then subjoined by the aorist éwepiocevoer. 


CHAP. VIII., 3-5. 579 
gladness of soul, rising above all afflictions (Gal. v. 22 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10 ; Rom. 
xiv. 17 ; comp. on John xv. 11), is not yet defined here more precisely as 
regards its special expression, but is already brought into prominence with 
a view to the second part of the verse, consequently to the liberality which 
gladly distributes (ix. 7; Acts xx. 35).—7 xara Bdfove rrwyeia] the deep 
poverty,’ literally, that which has gone down to the depth (Winer, p. 357 [E.T. 
477]) ; comp. Bdboc caxév, Aesch. Pers. 718, Hel. 303 3 éc¢ xivdvvov Bafiv, Pind. 
Pyth. iv. 368, and the like ; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 471. (0°) The 
opposite is BalizAovroc, Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 1. p. 286. — érepiccevoer] became 
abundant, i.e. developed an exceedingly great activity, and this ele rdv 
mAovrov K.T.A.,* unto the riches of their singleness of heart. (v°) This is the re- 
sult (Rom. iii. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 8) of the érepioc.; so that their simple, up- 
right spirit showed itself as rich, in spite of their poverty, through the 
abundance of kind gifts which they distributed. Note the skill and point 
of the antithetic correlation purposely marking the expressions in the two 
parts of the verse. — The drAdryc * is the upright simplicity of heart (Eph. 
vi. 5; Col. iii. 22); honestly and straightforwardly it contributes what it 
can to the work of love without any selfish design or arriére pensée (as e.g. 
the widow with her mite). Comp. on xii. 8. And so it is rich, even with 
deep poverty on the part of the givers. The genitive is, as in repioceia tie 
xap., the genitivus subjecti, not objecti (rich in simplicity), as Hofmann, follow- 
ing older commentators, holds. The airdv is against this latter view, for 
either it would have been wanting, or it would have been added to riotrov, 
because it would belong to that word. ; 

Vv. 3-5. "Oris not dependent on yrepifouev (Hofmann), but gives the 
proof of what was just said : eic tov rA0bTOv TH¢ aA. ait. — The construction is 
plain ; for there is no need to supply an joav, as many wish, after aifaiperor 
or after deduevor, but, as Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ éduxav. . . totam periochae 
structuram sustinet.” Comp. Fritzsche, Dessert. II. p. 49 ; Billroth, Ewald, 
Osiander, Hofmann. There are, namely (and in accordance therewith the 
punctuation is to be fixed), four modal definitions attached to this édwxav : 
They gave (1) according to and beyond their means ; (2) of their own impulse ; 
(3) urgently entreating us for the yapic and xowovia x.t.A.; and (4) not as we 
hoped, but themselves, etc. This dast modal definition is naturally and quite 
logically attached by cai (hence kai ob xabedc HAric.) ; and Riickert (comp. de 
Wette and Neander) is arbitrary in holding this xai to prove that Paul al- 
lowed the sentence he had begun to drop, and appended a new one, so that 


_1Asagrammatical supplement the simple 
ovoais sufficient ; hence it is not to be taken, 
with Hofmann, as the poverty sinking deeper 
and ever deeper, but as the deep-sunk pov- 
erty. On xara with genitive, comp. the 
Homeric xara xdovos Il. ili. 217; cara yatys, 
Il. xiii. 504; xara ometovs, Od. ix. 330 (down 
into the cave), xii. 98. See in general, Spitz- 
ner, De vi et usu praepos, ava et card ap. 
Homer. 1831, p. 20 ff. 

2The neuter form, 7d mAotdros (Lachm. 
Tisch. Riick.), is attested here by B C &* 17, 


31, but more decidedly in Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, iii. 
8216+ Phil, ivy. 19:3 Col. 1: 27, ii. 2. 

’ Hofmann conjectures that the promi- 
nence given to the amAdtns was called forth 
by the want of it among the Achaean Chris- 
tians. In this case there would be in ita 
side-allusion, which is not justified in what 
follows. But the amAdrys, which had shown , 
itself among the Macedonians in a specially 
high degree, was to serve them as an e#- 
ample, by way of stimulating emulation, not 
exactly of putting them to shame, ~ 


580 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


after 7Aricauev we should have to supply an éyévero or éroinoav. — waptrvpa| I 
testify it, a parenthetic assurance. Comp. the Greek use of oiua: and the 
like (Bornem. ad Xen. Conv. p. 71,179 ; Stallb. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 460 A). — 
mapa dvvauv| 7.é. more amply than was accordant with their resources. 
See Homer, JJ. xiii. 787; Thucyd. i. 70. 2; Lucian. Wigr. 28, de Dom. 10. 
The same, in substantial meaning, is izép divaui, 1. 8; Dem. 292. 25. It 
forms, with xara dtvau., a climactic definition of édwxav, not of aifaip., to 
which it is not suitable. —ai@aipero:| excludes human persuasion or compul- 
sion, not the divine influence (see ver. 5, da OeAjuatog Seow) ; We must not, 
with Riickert, hold it, on account of the remark ix. 2, to be an exaggeration, 
since the latter notice does not deny the self-determination of the Macedo- 
nians, but, when compared with our passage, exhibits as the real state of the 
case this, that Paul had boasted of the readiness of the Achaeans before the 
Macedonians, but without exhortation to the latter, and that these thereupon, 
of their own accord, without urging, had resolved on making a contribution, 
and had given very amply. Comp. Chrysostom on ix. 2.  aiaiperoc, free- 
willed, self-determined, only here and at ver. 17 in the N. T., often in the 
classic writers ; seldom of persons (Xen. Anab. v. 7, 29; Lucian. Catapl. 
4). Comp. the adveib in 2 Macc. vi. 19 ; 3 Macc. vi. 6. —perd roAdjc. . . 
eic T. ayiovc| to be taken together : with much exhortation entreating us for 
the kindness and the participation in the ministering to the saints, i.e. urgently 
entreating us that the kindness might be shown them of permitting them to take 
active part in the. . . work of collections. Ovy iueic avtov edeHOnuev, a22' adror 
yuav, Chrysostom ; and in the xowwria sought they saw a kindness to be 
shown to themselves : they knew how to value the work of love thus highly. 
The yapc, namely, here is not grace from God (Hofmann and the older com- 
mentators), since it was requested from the apostle, but tiv yapw k. T. Koivor. 
is a true ép did dvoiv (the favour, and indeed the partaking, i.e. the favour of 
partaking). See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 854, and generally, Nigelsbach on 
Jl. iii. 100, p. 461, ed. 8. Bengel, who likewise rejects the défac0a muac of 
the Recepta, connects tiv yapiv Kk. tiv Kotvwrviay K.t.A. With édoxav : but what 
a prolix designation of the withal quite self-evident object of édoxav would 
that be, while dedéuevor juov would remain quite open and void of definition ! 
On deicha, with accusative of the thing and genitive of the person, comp. 
Plato, Apol. p. 18 A, p.41 E; Xen. Cyrop. i. 4.12 ; Anabd. vii. 3. 5; 3 Esd. 
vill. 538. Yet in the classics the accusative of the object is the neuter of a 
pronoun, like roiro buoy déouar; brep tuav déoua, and the like, or of an ad- 
jective (Kriiger on Thue. i. 82. 1). —rie ele tobe dyiovc|] In this addition 
(comp. 1 Cor, xvi. 1), which would in itself be superfluous, there lies a mo- 
tive of the deduévor. — kai ob xaboc 7Aricauerv| for but a little could be expected 
from the oppressed and poor Macedonians! Ov rept tio yvdoune Abyet, aAXa 
Tept Tov TAHIove TOV ypnuatwv, Theodoret. According to Hofmann, the words 
are meant only to affirm that the Macedonians had joined in the contribu- 
tion quite of their own resolution, which had not been expected by the apostle. 
But in this case the remark, which on this interpretation would be no inde- 
pendent element, but only the negative expression of what was already said 
in aiVaiperor, would have had its logical position immediately behind aidai- 


CHAP. VIIL., 6. 581 


pero. ; and it must have run not as it is written by Paul, but: kada¢ ox 
qiricauev. No, the apostle says: and their giving did not remain within 
the limits of the hope which we had formed regarding them, but far sur- 
passed these (447 éavrove x.7.A.). — aan Eavtode x.7.2.| but themselves they gave, 
etc. An expression of the highest Christian readiness of sacrifice and liber- 
ality, which, by giving up all individual interests, is not only a contribution 
of money, but a self-surrender, in the first instance, to the Lord, since in fact 
Christ is thereby served, and also to him who conducts the work of collec- 
tion, since he is to the giver the organ of Christ. Flatt and Billroth, fol- 
lowing Mosheim and Heumann, are wrong in making zpérov before in the 
sense : before I asked them. This reference is not in the least implied in the 
immediate context (ob xado¢ 7Amic.) ; and if it were, zpdrov must have had 
the first place :' aAAa rpérov éavrode édwxav x.7.A. Asthe words stand, éavroic¢ 
has the emphasis of the contrast with ob cadd¢ Aric. Bengel also (comp. 
Schrader) is wrong in thinking that in zpdrov there is implied prae munere: 
the Macedonians, before they made collection, had first given themselves to 
the Lord, and then left it to the apostle to determine how large their con- 
tribution should be. In that case there must have been inserted kai ta yp- 
pata juiv, or something similar, as a correlative to éavtode rpatov TO Krpiy. 
It is wrong to find in éavroic the idea merely of voluntarily,? without any 
summons, because it is object of the verb. It must have run: airol 
éavtov¢ x.T.2. (comp. 1. 9), or without stress on the self-object, ad’ éavrdv. — 
kal nuiv| Paul does not say érevta juiv (in opposition to the wswal opinion that 
xai stands for érecta ; so also Riickert), because the surrender to the Lord is 
not a prius in time, but in degree: to the Lord before all, and to us. So Rom. 
1. 16, 11. 9, 10. — did eAnu. Feot] not exactly an expression of modesty (Bill- 
roth),—for it is only arbitrary to limit it merely to kai juiv (so also Bengel, 
Ewald),—but added quite according to the requirement of religious feeling : 
for God has, according to His will, so wrought on their dispositions, that 
they, etc. Comp. vv. 1, 16. 

Ver. 6. In order that we should exhort Titus, etc. Comp. ver. 17. ei¢ 76 
with the infinitive is here, as in all passages (see on Rom. i. 20), to be taken, 
not as so that (so usually, and by Winer), but as telic: inorder that. Comp. 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 20. Certainly the rapaxarécar jude Titov k.t.A. 
was a consequence of the beyond expectation successful course of the matter 
in Macedonia, in accordance with which Paul might promise himself no less 
a success among the Corinthians ; but delicately and piously he presents 
the state of the case, as if thisfurther prosecution of the work of collection, 
amidst the self-sacrificing liberality of the Macedonians effected by the di- 
vine will, had lain in God’s purpose, and was therefore a consequence that 
had been aimed at by God. This flows from the oa SeAnu. Feod immediately 
preceding. Comp. Hofmannalso. Paul sees in the fact, that the divinely- 


1This also in opposition to Hofmann, not mean ‘‘ without,’ but “ before that,” ete. 
who, in consistency with his inappropriate 2So Hofmann; whence there would re- 
interpretation of x. ov kat. nAmic., takes sult even a threefold expression of the vol- 
apatov: without such a thought (such a hope) untary act, namely: (1) in avdaiperor 5 (2) in 
having occurred tome. Besides, spwtov would x, ov kad. HAnio. 3 and (8) in éavTovs, 


582 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


willed success of the collecting work in Macedonia has encouraged him to 
the continuance of it expressed in ver. 6, the fulfilment of the divine coun- 
sel and will, which he is thereby serving. —iva]. Design in the rapaxaréoaz, 
and consequently its contents. — kada¢ mpoevipeato| as he formerly has begun, 
without doubt during his sojourn in Corinth after our first Epistle ; sce 
Introd. § 1. The word is indeed without example elsewhere, but it is 
formed from évadpyoua, after the analogy of xpodpyw and others. —otrw kat 
éxitehéon eic buac| so also might complete it among you. The emphasis lies, as 
before on mpoevfpEaro, So here on éxiteAéoyn. With the verb of rest ei¢ associates 
the thought of the previous arrival, so that é/0ov may for clearness be sup- 
plied. See Kiihner, § 622 6; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XIII. p. 71; Ellendt, 
Tex. Soph. 1. p. 587. The correlation of évapyeodar .and éritedeiv is simply 
as in Phil. i. 6, Gal. iii. 8 ; we should anticipate (ix. 12) by importing the 
idea of sacrifice (Osiander). — kai tyv yapw tabryv| not hane quoque gratiam 
(Beza, Calvin, comp. Castalio), but : etiam gratiam istam (Vulgate). For 
also belongs to tiv yapiy, not to rabryv. He shall complete among you—in 
addition to whatever else he has already begun and has still to complete— 
also this benefit. This better suits the context, namely, the connection of the 
obtw kai eriteA. With xadaec mpoevfpEaro, than the interpretation of Estius : 
‘¢ dicit etiam, ut innuat Titum alia quaedam apud ipsos jam perfecisse.” So 
also Flatt. It is quite superfluous to invoke, with Hofmann, an involution 
of two sentences in order to explain the double «ai. And since «ai refers 
to the activity of Titus, Billroth is wrong in explaining it: ‘‘they are to 
distinguish themselves in this good deed, as in all things.” —The work of 
collection is designated as yapic, for on the side of the givers it was a show- 
ing of kindness, a work of love, an opus charitativum. Observe that here and 
in vv. 4, 19, deod is not added, as in ver. 1, ix. 14, according to which 
Tfofmann and older commentators explain it here also of the divine grace, of 
which they are made worthy through the service rendered. 

Vv. 7-15. Encouragement to associate with their other Christian excel- 
lences distinction also in this work of love, which he says not in the form of 
a command, but to test their love—for they knew indeed the pattern of 
love in Christ—and by way of advice (vv. 7-9). For this is serviceable for 
them, inasmuch as they had already made the beginning. Now, however, 
they were not to fail of completing their work, namely, according to their 
means ; for it was not intended that others should be at ease while they 
were in want, but that a relation of equality should be established (vv. 10- 
15). 

Ver. 7. ’AA2’]| is not equivalent to ojv (Beza and others, also Flatt), nor to 
agedum (Emmerling), but is the Latin at, breaking off the preceding state- 
ment, like the German doch. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812, aptly says: 
‘‘Saepe indicat, satis argumentorum allatum esse.”” Comp. Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 15. Olshausen has a more far-fetched idea, that it is corrective : 
yea rather, And Billroth imports quite arbitrarily : ‘‘ When I entreated 
Titus, I knew beforehand that this time also you would not deceive me, 
but that, as you are distinguished in all that is good, so also you would 
zealously further this collection ;” and Riickert also (similarly Calvin) : ‘‘T 


CHAP, VIII., 8. 583 


have entreated Titus, ete.; yet let it not happen that he should need first to 
encourage you (?), yea rather, etc.” Aceording to Hofmann,4224 forms the 
transition to the ob car’ éritayjy 2éyw which follows in ver. 8 ; but this sup- 
poses a very involved construction (comp. afterwards on iva x.r.2.). — dorep 
év mavti x.T.A.| as you in every relation are abundant (excellitis) through faith 
(strength, fervour, and efficacy of faith), and discourse (aptitude in speaking), 
and knowledge (see regarding both on 1 Cor. i. 5), and every diligence (‘‘ stu- 
dium ad agendas res bonas,” Grotius), and your love to us, so should you abound 
in showing this kindness. Wf riorec x.7.2. be taken asa specification of év ravri 
(Luther, Grotius, and most), the meaning is more uncertain, since év is not 
repeated. Comp. vi. 4; 1 Cor. 1. 5 ; it comesin again only before rairy r. 
zap. Grotius aptly remarks: non ignoravit P. artem rhetorum, movere 
laudando.” Amidst the general praise, however, he wisely here also leaves 
the distingue personas to the feeling of the readers. —7rq é ipav év buiv ayary] 
Paul here conceives the active love as something issuing from the disposition 
of the person loving, and adhering to the person loved. Thus he felt the 
love of the Corinthians to him in his heart ; comp. vii. 3. This view alone 
suits the context, inasmuch as the other points mentioned are points purely 
subjective, belonging to the readers, and serving to recommend them ; hence 
we are not to understand it as the love dwelling in the apostle, but owing its 
origin to the readers (Hofmann). Calvin aptly remarks: ‘‘ Caritatem erga 
se commemorat, ut personae quoque suae respectu illis addat animos.”” On 
the form of the expression, comp. Winer, p. 181 f. [E. T. 241]. — iva kat év 
tavTy Th ydpite tepico.| A periphrasis for the imperative, to be explained by 
supplying a verb of summoning, on which iva depends in the conception of 
the speakers. See Buttmann, p. 208 [E. T. 241] ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
840, ad Mare. p. 179. In the old Greek érw¢ is used in the very same way 
(iva late and seldom, as in Epictetus, Dissert. iv. 1.142). See Matthiae, p. 
1187; Viger. ed. Herm. pp. 485, 791 f.; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 148. 
According to Grotius and Bengel, whom Hofmann follows, the connecting 
of iva «.t.A. with the following ov kar’ émitayyv Aéyw Would yield no unsuita- 
ble sense (in opposition to Riickert); but the construction of the passage in 
vv. 7 and 8, so as to form one period, would be a construction. assumed 
without sufficient ground, ill-arranged and ambiguous, and would not ac- 
cord with the apostle’s way of beginning a new sentence by od . . . Aéyw in 
order to guard against an incorrect judgment of the previous one (vii. 3; 1 
Cor. iv. 14. Comp. 2. Cor. v. 12). —In kai év tatty rH ydpiti, TaiTy has the 
emphasis (it was otherwise in ver. 6); also in this showing of kindness, as in 
other works of beneficence,—which was embraced in év ravi. 

Ver. 8. Prudent and yet deeply stirring caveat in reference to what was 
said in ver. 7. Not by way of command do I say tt, but as, through the dili- 
gence of others, testing also the genuine nature of your love. — dia] ‘‘ aliorum 
studio vobis commemorato,” Bengel. — érépwv] of members of extraneous 
churches. — rd yvfotov] the genuineness. (x°) See Kiihner, II. p. 122; Dis- 
sen, ad Pind. Mem. p. 452. — doxiuafev| is here, too (comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 
28), not probatum reddere (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Estius), but explorare ; for 
by the result, which the setting forth of the Macedonian example would 


584 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


have on the Corinthians, it had to be shown whether, and how far, their 
brotherly love was genuine or not. The participle does not depend on ver. 
10 (Bengel), but on 2éyw, which is to be supplied again after 42/4. Aéyo with 
the participle: I say it, inasmuch as I thereby, etc. Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 14. 

Ver. 9. Parenthesis which states what holy reason he has for speaking to. 
them, not kar’ éxitay#v, but in the way just mentioned, that of testing their 
love. For you know, indeed (yivdécxere not imperative, as Chrysostom and 
others think), what a high pattern of gracious kindness you have experienced 
in yourselves from Jesus Christ. So the testing, which I have in view 
among you, will only be imitation of Christ. Olshausen rejects here the 
conception of pattern, and finds the proof of possibility: ‘‘ Since Christ by 
His becoming poor has made you rich, you also may communicate of your 
riches ; He has placed you in a position to do so.” The outward giving, name- 
ly, presupposes the disposition to give as an internal motive, without which 
it would not take place. But in this view rAovrfoyre would of necessity 
apply to riches in loving dispositions, which, however, is not suggested at 
all in the context, since in point of fact the consciousness of every believing 
reader led him to think of the whole fulness of the Messianic blessings as the 
aim of Christ’s humiliation, and to place in that the riches meant by rAour#- 
onte. — br OV tac K.t.A.| that He for your sakes, etc., epexegetical of rv yapew 
T. kup. Hil. Inoov Xpiotov. The emphatic dv iwac brings home to the believing 
consciousness of the readers individually the aim, which in itself was uni- 
versal. — érréyevoe| inasmuch as He by His humiliation to become incarnate 
emptied Himself of the participation, which He had in His pre-existent 
state, of God’s glory, dominion, and blessedness (mAotcvog ov), Phil. ii. 6. 
On the meaning of the word, comp. LXX. Judg. vi. 6, xiv. 15 ; Ps. xxxiv. 
10, Ixxix. 8 ; Prov. xxiii. 21; Tob. iv. 21; Antiphanes in Becker’s Anecd. 
112. 24. The aorist denotes the once-occurring entrance into the condition 
of being poor, and therefore certainly the having become poor (although 
mtwyevev, as also the classical revécfa:, does not mean to become poor, but 
to be’ poor), and not the whole life led by Christ in poverty and loneliness, 
during which He was nevertheless rich in grace, rich in ecard blessings ; 
so Baur? and Koéstlin, Lehrbegr. d. Joh. p. 310, also Beyschlag, Christol. p. 
237. On the other hand, see Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 38 f.; Neander, 
ed. 4, p. 801 f.; Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 50 f.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. pp. 312, 
318. — dv] is the imperfect participle : when He was rich, and does not denote 
the abiding possession (Estius, Riickert) ; for, according to the context, 
the apostle is not speaking of what Christ is, but of what He was,* before 
He became man, and ceased to be on His self-exinanition in becoming man 
(Gal. iv. 4 ; this also in opposition to Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. p. 447). So 
also imdpyov, Phil. ii. 6.— iva tyeig . . . rAovtrAonre| in order that you 
through His poverty might become rich. These riches are the reconciliation, 


1 As €.g. Bacireverv, to be king, but éBaci- 2 Comp. his neut. Theol. p. 198: ** though 
Aevoa: I have become king. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. in Himself as respects His right rich, He 
8 ; andsee in general, Ktihner, a@ Xen. Mem. lived poor.”’ 

i. 1.18; also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 3 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 
245, 144. ; 


OHAP. VIII:, 10. d85 


justification, illumination, sanctification, peace, joy, certainty of eternal 
life, and hereafter its actual possession, in short, the whole sum of spiritual 
and heavenly blessings (comp. Chrysostom) which Christ has obtained for 
believers by His humiliation even to the death of the cross. IlAovreiv means 
with the Greek writers, and in the N. T. (Rom. x. 12; Luke xii. 21), to be 
rich ; but the aorist (1 Cor. iv. 8) is to be taken as with érréyevoe. ’Exetvov, 
instead of the simple aivov (Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 80; Dissen, ad 
Dem. de cor. p. 276, 148), has great emphasis : ‘‘ magnitudinem Domini in- 
nuit,” Bengel. — In opposition to the interpretation of our passage, by which 
éxroy. falls into the historical life, so that rAotoroc Hv is taken potentialiter as 
denoting the power to take to Himself riches and dominion, which, however, 
Jesus has renounced and has subjected Himself to poverty and self-denial 
(so Grotius and de Wette), see on Phil. ii. 6. 

Ver. 10. After the parenthesis in ver. 9, a continuation of the aa2a .. . 
doxiwdlav, ver. 8: and an opinion I give in this affair. Tveunr, opinion, has 
the emphasis, as contrasting with érrayjv in ver. 8. Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 
25. — rovTo yap byuiv ovugéper| cvudépec does not mean decet (Vorstius, Emmer- 
ling, who appeals to LXX. Prov. xix. 10, where, however, the translation 
is inaccurate), but: it profits. And rovro is not, with most, including 
Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Neander, to be referred to the supplying of chari- 
table gifts, in which case ovudéper is cither left without more precise defini- 
tion (Riickert : ‘‘like every good deed, bringing advantage’’), or is inter- 
preted as pointing to the advantage of good repute (Grotius, comp. also 
Hofmann), of the divine recompense (Calovius) and the moral advantage 
(Flatt), or as useful for salvation (Bisping), and so on. Toivro yap tu. ovud. 
contains, in fact, the ground why Paul proceeds in this matter merely by 
way of advising; hence, with Billroth, Osiander, and Kling, roiro is to be 
referred to the previous yrdunv . . . didwus. It is no objection to this, that 
in év rotrw immediately before the pronoun referred to the distribution. For 
‘in the previous clause yrounv didws contained the whole thought, and év ror 
had no stress laid on it, not even needing to beinserted. Accordingly : for 
this—that I do not command you, but only give my opinion in the matter— 
as serviceable to you, is fitted to operate in the way of moral improvement on 
you, as being persons who have already shown yourselves to be such as need 
not command, but only counsel. The emphasis lies primarily on rovro and 
next on juiv. According to Hofmann, who does not take ver. 9 parentheti- 
cally, in kai yvounv x.7.A. there is meant to follow something new and 
further, so that both év rotrw and subsequently rovro point to the advice, 
which Paul intends to give (with the following . . . what follows), and this 
advice is expressed in the imperative clause ver. 11, to which oirive¢ x.7.A. 
belongs as a protasis. Against this confusion it may be decisively urged, 
first, that the év ror» emphatically pointing forward must have been: placed 
first ; secondly, that after Jidwu: there would come not at all the announced 
yvoun, but in the first instance an argumentative parenthetic clause, which 
would again begin with ‘‘ what follows,’ —a course which could only lead the 
reader astray ; thirdly, that if rovro y. iuiv cvugéper does not go with oiriwe¢ 
«.T.A., and find its more precise explanation therein, it would interpolate a 





586 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
thought altogether indefinite and isolated ; fourthly, that dé after vvri in ver. 
11 most naturally introduces a new sentence ; lastly, that ver. 11 has not in 
the least the form of a yvéuy, of an expression of opinion, but a form purely 
praeceptive, as, indeed, that which the apostle has put under the considerate 
point of view of a testing and a youn in contrast to an éritayf, was already 
contained in ver. 7 and has nothing more to do with the direct precept of 
ver. 11. — oircvec] wt gui, includes the specifying of the reason. See on Eph. 
iii. 138. ov pdvov 7d rojo, aAAG Kal 7d OéAe] Grotius, following the Peshitto 
and Arabic of Erpenius, assumes here a loguendi genus inversum ; but this is 
an irrational violence,’ to which also the view of Emmerling (comp. Cas- 
talio in the Adnot.) ultimately comes: ‘‘ vos haud mora, uno momento 
facere et velle coepistis.” The explanation of others? is at least rational : 
not only the doing, but also the being willing, i.e. the doing willingly. But that 
6é2ev is not used in the sense of é2ovrac roveiv (see regarding this use of 
0é20v, Markl. ad Lys. Reisk. p. 616), or even 6éAecv rovjoa (Bremi, ad Dem. 
Phil. i. 13, p. 121), is plain from ver. 11, where Paul, if that meaning had 
been in his mind, must have continued : vuvt dé Kal émiteAéoate TO 7. But, 
in the form in which he has written ver. 11, the emphasis lies not on émureAé- 
cate, but on 7d rorjoat, which is thereby shown to be something not con- 
temporaneous with the 6éAev, but following upon it, something which is 
still to happen after that 0éAevv is already present, so that we have an advance 
(1) from the rocjoa to the 6éAev in ver. 10 ; and (2) from the 6éAev to the 
further ro.joa: in ver. 11. Moreover, in opposition to the former interpre- 
tation, we may urge the change of tenses in ver. 10; for, if the @éAecv in 
ver. 10 were to be something inherent in the previous rojoa (willingness), 
the aorist infinitive must likewise have been used. Lastly, there is opposed 
to this interpretation the drw¢ xafarep «.T.A. In ver. 11, where evidently the 
(future) actual accomplishment is compared with the inclination of the 
(present) willing ; hence, in ver. 10 also 6éAe1v must be conceived of as some- 
thing which subsists for itself, and not simply as a willingly doing. Others 
conceive that rd rovjoar denotes the collection-gathering which had already 
actually taken place, and 76 6éAew. the continuing wish to do still more. 'This is 
in the main the view of Hunnius, Hammond, Wetstein,* Mosheim,. Bengel, 
Michaelis, Fritzsche. The latter says (Dissert. II, p. 9): ‘‘hoe modo non 
solum 76 Oéhewn tanquam gravius 76 rotetv oppositum est (nam qui nova beneficia 
veteribus addere vult, plus illo agit, qui in eo quod praestitit, subsistit) sed etiam 
0. mpoevapEacba utrique bene congruit, uli (rd rojoa), quoniam nondum tan- 
tum pecuniae erogaverant, quantum ad justam doyiav sufficere videretur, huic 
tw Oérewv) quoniam in hae nova voluntate hue usque acquieverant.” In this way 
the change of tenses in zozfoa: and (éAev would be quite appropriate ; both 
would apply (this in opposition to Billroth’s objection) to the same fact, to 


17This inversion is followed also by Paul. p. 8384; Zachariae, Storr, Rosen- 


Luther, not in the translation, but in the: 


gloss: ‘‘ You have been the first, who willed it 
and also did it.” 

2 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Gregory, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius 
& Lapide, Clericus, Heumann, Bauer, Log. 


miiller, Flatt, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, 
Riickert, Osiander, Ewald, and several 
others. 

3 Who says: ‘‘moujoa est dare; dédrew 
moujoat, 4.€, mowjoety Vel dacewv, Aaturum 
esse,” 


CHAP. VIII., 10. 587 


the work of collecting begun in pursuance of 1 Cor. xvi., which, however, 
would be viewed not according to two different sides (Billroth), objective 
(worqoat) and subjective (0éAev), but according to two different stages, in 
respect of the first activity and of the further willing, so that now also the 
third stage, the execution of this further willing, must be added to complete 
the whole matter, ver. 11. But since there is no indication whatever of the 
reference of rd AéAew to a further willing (following on the zovjoar), and that 
a willing arrested as to its realization ; and since, on the other hand, the 
mpo in mpoevfpe. permits for the climactic relation ob pudvov 7d roujoat, GAG Kat 
7d Oédew Only the temporal reference, that the #éAe.v must have been earlier 
than the rovjoa, and consequently ov wovov . .. GAda cai is a Climax of time 
pointing not forward, but backward: the view of Fritzsche is to be given up 
as not accordant with the context. There remains as the only correct view, 
that of Cajetanus and Estius, which de Wette (and after him Winer, p. 521 
[E. T. 701 f.], also Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364) has defended, 
that mpoevfpé. places the readers in comparison as to time with the Mace- 
donians (ver. 1 ff.) : not only the doing (the carrying out of the action of 
collecting), but also already the willing has begun earlier among you than 
among the Macedonians ; you have anticipated them in both respects. With 
this view it is obvious that Paul could not but logically place rojoa: before 
Géxeww. The offence, which this arrangement would otherwise occasion, 
cannot be got over by the pregnant meaning, which Hofmann puts into the 
present 0éAewv, viz. that it denotes the steady attitude of mind sustained up to 
the execution (comp. Billroth). This would, in fact, be a modal definition 
of the willing, which Paul would doubtless have known how to designate, 
but could not put into the bare present.’ And such an attitude of mind 
would withal have already existed before the roijoa, and would not simply 
have come afterwards. — amd répvo.| More precise definition of the zpo in xpo- 
evips.: since the previous year. On répvo., superiore anno, see Plato, Protag. p. 
327 C; Gorg. p. 473 E; Aristoph. Vesp. 1044 ; Acharn. 348 ; Lucian, 77%m. 
59 ; Soloec. 7, al. Comp.ix. 2. Whether did Paul date the beginning of the 
year after the Greek (rather Attic and Olympic) reckoning (so Credner, Hinl. 
I. 2, p. 372), z.e. about the time of the summer solstice, or after the Macedonian 
fashion (so, on account of ix. 2, Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364), 
z.e. at the autumnal equinox, or from the month Nisan (Hofmann ; see 
Grimm on 1 Macc. x. 21), or from the usual national standpoint of the 
Jewish reckoning, according to which the beginning of the civil year was 
the month Tisri (in Sept.) ? The last is in itself the most natural, and also 
the most probable, considering the great variety as to the times of beginning 
the year, to which he would have had to accommodate himself in the 
various provinces, and considering not less the acquaintance with the 
Jewish calendar which he could take for granted in all his churches. Con- 
sequently there lies between the composition of our first and second Epistles 
the time from Easter till at least after the beginning of the new year in Tisri. 


1The present denotes simply the being the historical doing (rovjoat), through which 
disposed asthe habitus of readiness prevail- the déAev became active. 
ing in the case, by way of distinction from 


588 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 11. The xai before 75: rosgoa can only belong to it, and not to émureA. 
also (de Wette, Hofmann). It is the simple accessory also; as in ver. 10 
the thought proceeded backwards from doing to willing, now it proceeds 
forwards from willing to doing, so that at the bottom of kai rd rovjoau there 
lies the conception : Now, however, bring not merely the willing, but also the 
doing to completion. (z°) This is an analysis of the elements, which in reality 
coincide (for the érireAéca: of the willing is the actual execution), occasioned, 
however, very naturally by the juxtaposition in ver. 10, and giving rise to 
no misconception here. — érw¢ xafarep x.t.A4.] in order that as the inclination 
of the willing, so also the completion (of that, which ye will) may be accord- 
ing to means, i.e. in order that the actual execution of that, which you will, 
may not remain out of proportion to the inclination of your will, but, like the 
latter, may be accordant with your means. Asit is the inclination of your 
will to contribute according to the standard of your possessing, the execution 
of this willingness should take place according to the same standard. —oire 
Kaito émiteAéoa] sc. 7. The supplying the subjunctive of eiwcis not linguisti- 
cally inadmissible (Riickert), and is found already in Homer (J1. 1. 547, and 
Niigelsb. in loc.), but it is certainly rare in Greek writers. Comp. ver. 13. 
See Bernhardy, p. 330 f ; Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 120 [E. T. 187]. — éx 
tov éyew] belongs to both subjects of the clause of purpose : in pursuance of 
the having, according to your means. See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 179 f. 
Comp. expressions like é« tév rapévtwr, éx Tov brapyévtwv, and the like. ’Ex 
is not to be taken in the sense of the origin, as Hofmann wishes ; for it would, 
in fact, be an indelicate and bad compliment to the inclination of the readers, 
that it had ‘‘ originated” from their possession. Paul himself indicates 
afterwards by xa#é in what meaning he uses ék. 

Ver. 12. Confirmation of the é« rot éyew by a general proposition. There 
is nothing to be supplied except the simple éori after eirpdodexroc, so that 7 
rpoduuia remains the subject (Vulg., Erasmus, and others, including Riickert, 
Osiander, Ewald). It is quite superfluous mentally to supply the non-genuine 
ric after éyn, and to refer evxpédo0d. to it (Billroth), all the more that Paul is 
fond of personifying abstractions (7 zpofuuia). The correct translation is : 
For, if the inclination exists (presents itself as existing), it is well-pleasing in 
proportion to that which it has, not in proportion to that which it has not, i.e. 
God measures His good pleasure according to that which the rpé@vuo¢g (who 
-is ready to contribute) possesses, not according to that which he does not 
possess.’ If, for example, the poor man who is ready to give little, because 
he has not much, were less pleasing to God than the rich man, who is will- 
ing to give much, God would then determine His good pleasure according to 
what the zpdéfuuoc does not possess. Such an unjust standard God does not 
apply to good will! ov yap tiv moodryTa, aAAa THE yvOune dpa THY ToLdTyTA, 
Theodoret. On xpéxecrac in the sense specified, see Kypke, I. p. 259, and 
from Philo, Loesner, p. 812. Comp. rtapéxectac, Rom. vii. 18. The inter- 
pretation prius adest, namely, tanquam boni operis fundamentum (Erasmus, 


1 An evangelical commentary on this sentence is the story of the widow’s mite, Mark 
xii. 42 ff. ; Luke xxi. 2 ff. 


CHAP. VIII., 13. 589 


Beza, Estius, and others), is not supported by linguistic usage, and there is 
no hint in the context of a reference to time. Flatt imports ‘‘ wnpleasing” 
into the negative half of the sentence ; and Hofmann goes still further, since 
he finds in rpéxecra the realization of the good will, and attaches to this (not 
to evrpdod.) the cad édv éyn, While he thereupon adds the supplementary 
words ov xa0d oik Eyer SO as to form the sentence : ‘‘ that is not the condition 
of the acceptableness of the good will, that it is present as realized according to the 
measure of what it has not.” In this way we should have mentally to add ¢ 
mpoxecrac after ov ; and Paul would.not only have made use of a fragmentary 
mode of expression as unintelligibly as possible, but would withal have sup- 
posed an inconceivable cise, namely, that the good will is realized accord- 
ing to the measure of non-possession, which is tantamount to saying that the 
good will gives what it has not. And the assumption that rpédxecra: denotes 
already the realization of the rpoSéuia by the act, is the more erroneous, that 
the one before whom the rpodvuia is laid is here God, as is shown by ebrpéo- 
dextoc. God, however, looks on the heart, and the frame of mind itself lies 
open before Him. — Note further the difference between the conditioned kato 
édv éyn, in proportion to what he, under the respective circumstances of each 
case (é4v = av), may have, and the unconditioned xadd ob« éyec. Comp. Har- 
tung, Partikell. II. p. 293 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 143. 

Ver. 13. Confirmation of the previous ot cad ob« éyec from the aim of the 
present collection. — The words usually supplied after ot ydp (Beza, Flatt, and 
others : hoc dico; Erasmus and Grotius : sic dandum est ; Rosenmiiller and 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. p. 48: volo ; comp. Osiander ; Riickert has yiveraz roiro, 
comp. Ewald, and previously Luther) are superfluous, and therefore to be 
rejected. There is nothing to be supplied but 7 after OAc and yivera (see 
ver. 14) at the end of the verse : for not in order that there may be to others re- 
Freshing, to you distress, but on a footing of equality at the present time your 
superfluity reaches to the lack of those, is applied to remedy their lack. The 
punctuation is to be corrected accordingly. Since the sentence in this way 
flows logically and grammatically without any obstacle, there is not to be 
placed after 3Aic (Beza, Elzevir, Flatt, and many others), or yet even after 
toérntoc (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
and others), any colon, by which, moreover, év 76 viv carp would receive an 
emphasis not justified by any contrast, and would come in very abruptly, 
having no connecting particle. — aAAo:c] means the Christians in Jerusalem. 
The same are afterwards meant by éxeiywv. Probably opponents in Corinth 
had said : ‘‘he wishes to fleece us and bring us to want, that others may have 
good times or the like.” — On the contrast of dveove and F2ic, comp. 2 Thess. 
i.6f. The asyndeton: GAdowe adveoic, tuiv (dé is not genuine) FAmic presents 
the contrast more vividly. Paul, however, uses dAjorc, not érépoce (as in ver. 
8), because he has been thinking of others generally, other persons than the 
readers, —é& ioéryroc] éx, asin ver. 11, used of the standard. The establishment 
of equality (between you and others) is the norm, according to which, etc. — 
év T@ viv kaip@] awakens the thought of a future, where the state of the case 
might be reversed. See ver. 14. Hofmann thinks that Paul had here in 
view the definite inversion of the situation in such wise, that after Israel’s 


590 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


conversion (iil. 16) there would be in the Holy Land a Christian church 
under more prosperous fortunes than the body of Gentile Christians then 
sorely tried. But this is not to be made good by 2 Thess, ii. 8, and it has 
against it Rom. xi. 25, according to which, before the conversion of Israel 
will ensue, the whole Gentile world must first be converted, and accord- 
ingly Paul could hardly have thought of casual collections from Judaea as 
then either necessary or effectual for the Gentiles (apart altogether from the 
expected nearness of the Parousia). — On yiveobar eic, to come unto, reach to- 
wards, be apportioned to (Plato, Tim. p. 57 A ; Luc. Caucas, 19, al.), comp. 
on Gal. iii. 14. 

Ver. 14. f. In order that (divine purpose), if the circumstances change, 
the converse case may also set in, and the superfluity of those be im- 
parted to your lack. On account of ver. 18 we must, in accordance with the 
context, think also here of something earthly, not (as Jerome, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, the R. Catholics,’ Bengel, Michaelis, Schra- 
der wish) of spiritual blessings—which would be unhistorical, and quite op- 
posed to the standpoint of the apostle to the Gentiles. According to Paul, 
the participation of the Gentiles in the spiritual blessings of the Jewish 
Christians had already taken place through the conversion of the former, 
Rom. xv. 27. —érwe yévytat lodryc| in order that (according to the divine 
purpose equality might set in, since, namely, then they will not have too 
much and you too little, if their superfluity shall come to the help of your 
lack. (4°) According to Hofmann, ioéry¢ amounts here to the idea of the 
inversion of the relation, which, however, does not agree with ver. 15, and 
has against it the clear reference of the meaning of é iodr. im ver. 13. 
The idea of brotherly equalization, which Paul had expressed by 2 icér. as 
regulative for the present case in ver. 13, he repeats also for the eventual 
future case in ver. 14: it is to him of so much importance. And so 
important was it to the primitive church generally, that it even pro- 
duced at first in Jerusalem the community of goods. -— cadac¢ yéyparra] A 
confirmation from Scripture of this idea, which is to realize itself in the two 
cases, ver. 18 and ver. 14. It is already typically presented in the gathering 
of the manna, Ex. xvi. 18 (freely quoted after the LXX.). The quotation 
refers therefore not simply to ver. 14 but to vv. 13 and 14, since in both 
there prevails the same fundamental thought. — 467d moat] he who much, 
namely, had gathered, as in Ex. l.c., we must supply from the context (ver. 
17). Paul presupposes that his readers are aware of the reference and 
of the connection of the passage. —ovx érdedvace] had not too much, not 
more than was appointed by God for his necds ; 70 yap pétpov 6 peyadddwpog 
TQ ddpw ovvélevee, Theodoret. See Ex. xvi. 16 f. In the same way: ovx . 
haatrévnce, he had not,too little. The word, frequent in the LXX., is foreign 
to Greek writers. — The articles denote the two definite and well-known 
cases which occurred in the gathering. 

1 These misused the passage against Prot- See, on the contrary, Calovius. Bisping also 
estants in this way: ‘Locus hic apostolti thinks of prayers, merits of good works, and 
contra nostrae aetatis haereticos ostendit, posse _ the like, which love may give for temporal 


Christianos minus sanctos meritis sanctorum gifts received. 
adjuvari etiam in futuro saeculo,’”’ Estius. 


CHAP. VIII., 16-18. 591 


Vv. 16-24. Regarding Titus, already mentioned in ver. 6, and the two 
others, who were sent with Titus as delegates to Corinth about the col- 
lection. | 

Ver. 16. Aé] continuative. — ydpic rH Ved, TH diddvTe x.7.A.] language of 
the deeply religious consciousness (1 Cor. xv. 10; Rom. vi. 17; Phil. ii. 
13). Comp. ver. 1. The present participle ; for the continuing zeal is con- 
tinually given by God. (B°) —ryv airiy orovd.| namely, asin me. This ref- 
erence is made necessary by irép tuov, by which Billroth’s explanation : 
‘the same zeal, which you have for the good cause,” is excluded. — év ri capo. } 
See on év rtaic¢ éxxAno., ver. 1. 

Ver. 17. Proof of this oxovd4 of Titus. — For the summons indeed he re- 
ceived ; but, seeing that he was more zealous, of his own accord he set out to you. 
Paul has not expressed himself incorrectly, seeing that he can only have had 
in his mind a climax (Riickert) ; nor has he used ywév. , . dé in the sense of 
the climactic od pévov. . . add (Billroth, also Flatt) ; but the concessive 
clause tiv pév rapdkd. édé&. expresses the delicate modesty and subordination 
of Titus, according to which he would not have it appear that he set out on 
the journey aidaiperoc ; the second clause, on the other hand, sets forth the 
actual state of the case. Theswmmons (ver. 6) indeed he received; he did not say 
as it were : there is no need of thy summons, I go of my own impulse ; but in 
the actual state of the case he was too zealous to have needed a summons, 
and set out to you of his own self-determination. — i&j2%e| The praeterite does 
not denote what was resolved on (Billroth), but is that of the epistolary style 
(comp. guveréuy., vv. 18, 22; Xen. Anabd. i. 9. 25), used to represent the 
point of time at which the letter is read by those receiving it. Comp. Acts 
xv. 27, xxlil. 30, also on Gal. vi. 11. 

Ver. 18. Recommendation of the first companion of Titus. — ovveréur. 
dé wer’ avtov| The oty refers, like per’ aitov, to Titus: we have sent along with 
him. Comp. ver. 22. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 354. Comp. Gal. ii. 12; 
Acts i. 26, xxv. 12; Matt. xvii. 3. Bengel takes it incorrectly : ‘‘ una mis- 
imus ego et Timotheus,” which is contained in the plural, but not in the 
compound. — rdy adeAgdv «.7.A.] is understood by Heumann and Riickert of 
an actual brother, viz. a brotherof Titus. But adeAgoi judv in ver. 23 shows 
that Paul has here and in ver. 22 f. taken ddeAgdéc in the sense of Christian 
brotherhood. It would not have been in keeping with the prudence of the apos- 
tle to send with Titus the very brother of the latter and even his own brother 
(according to Riickert’s view of r. ddcAd. #u., ver. 22). Whoismeant, remains 
quite an open question. Some have conjectured Barnabas (rivéc in Chrysos- 
tom, and Chrysostom himself, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, and 
others) or Silas (Baronius, Estius) ; but the rank of these was not consist- 
ent with the position of a companion subordinate to 7itws ; nor is there 
anywhere a trace of Barnabas and Paul having ever united again for com- 
mon work after their separation (Acts xv. 39). Others (comp. also the 
usual subscription of the Epistle) think that it was Luke.’ But from the 


1 So Origen, tives in Chrysostom, Jerome, including Grotius, Emmerling, Schrader, 
- Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Olshausen, Kohler (Adbfassungszeit, p. 85), of 
Cajetanus, Cornelius & Lapide, and others, whom those named before Grotius referred 


592 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

very brief statement of Acts xx. 1 ff. there is no proof to be drawn either 
for (Olshausen) or against (Riickert) ; and Ignatius, ad Hphes. (interpol.) 
16, to which Emmerling, after Salmeron and others, has again appealed, 
proves nothing further than that this unknown author either referred or 
merely applied our passage to Luke. The conjecture which points to Hras- 
tus (Ewald, following Acts xix. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 20) cannot be made good. 
With just as little proof some have thought of Mark (Lightfoot, Chron. p. 
118 ; Storr, Opusc. II. p. 389 ; Tobler, Hvangelienfr. p. 12). The result 
remains : we do not know who it was. So much only in reference to the two 
persons indicated here and in ver. 22, and in opposition to the conjectures 
adduced, is clear from ver. 23, that they were not fellow-labourers in the’ 
apostolic work, like Titus, but other Christians of distinction.’ See on ver. 
23. Against this non liquet Riickert indeed objects, that in that case the 
Corinthians would not have known which of the two was meant to be here 
designated, since in ver. 23 both are called arécroos éxxAnotav, by which all 
distinction is precluded. But this first companion is in ver. 19 so distinct- 
ively indicated as appointed by a special elective act of the churches concerned, 
and appointed just for this particular work, that he could not be unknown 
by name to the Corinthians, after Titus had already begun there the work 
of collection (ver. 6). Besides, Paul might leave all further information to 
Titus. — ob 6 éravvoc x.t.4.] 1.€. who possesses his praise (that duly belonging to 
him) in the gospel (in the cause of the gospel, in confessing, furthering, 
preaching, defending it, and the like), spread through all the churches, 
throughout the whole Christian body. He was a Christian worthy of trust 
and praised by all. 

Ver. 19. As oreAAduevoe in ver. 20 is connected with cvveréuyayuev in ver. 
18, ver. 19 is a parenthesis (Beza, Lachmann) in which Paul ‘ generali tes- 
timonio subjungit speciale, quod praesenti negotio congruit,” Calvin. — ov 
pdvov dé] sc. émavobuevog (Or éxacvéc, praised, or évdokoc, or the like) éor: év TO 
Comp. Rom. ix. 10, v. 8, 11, vill. 23. — 424 kai 
xeporovnveic x.7.2.] but also having been chosen by the (collecting) churches as 
our travelling companion, ete. éxcA. Contains a point so 
important in its bearing that we may not take it parenthetically, thereby 
breaking up the flow of the discourse.. So Hofmann, assigning the incor- 
rect reason, moreover, that the perfect participle must have been used. The 
perfect might be used ; but the aorist expresses the act done, whereby the 
person concerned became azécroaoc of the churches in this case (ver. 23), and 
so Paul has conceived of it here.—The éxxAynoiac here meant are, according to 


evayy. 01a Tac. TOV EKkKAno.” 


The yecpor. id 7. 


ev T@ evayy. to the Gospel of Luke (at that 
time not yet even in existence). 

1 Hence also we can hardly think of 
Trophimus (de Wette, Wieseler), Acts xx. 4, 
xxi. 29; nor, with Hofmann, of Aristarchus, 
Acts xix, 29, xx. 4; 

2 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 292], 
takes it differently : ‘“‘ who stands in repute, 
not only on this account (év 7 evayy., é.¢. 
asa preacher of the gospel), but also as one 
elected by the churches.’ But from the 


general év ro evayy. to xetporovys. there is no 
logical climax, as respects the specifying of 
areason for the ératvos ; whereas the predi- 
cation ascends from the universal praise of 
the man to his being elected by the churches 
—so as to assigna ground for the ovve- 
méuwapyev, Besides, his being elected was 
not the ground, but a consequence of his 
general repute, although it was the special 
ground for Paul’s sending him to Corinth. 


CHAP. VIII., 20. 595 
ver. 1 ff., the Macedonian. — yerporov.| suffragiis designatus. How this elec- 
tion was conducted, we do not know. Perhaps by the presbyters as repre- 
sentatives of the churches, and on the proposal of the apostle. Comp. on 
Acts xiv. 23. —év rH ydpite x.t.A.] amore precise definition of the cvvéxd. 
juav. It does not, however, simply mean : in the bringing over (Billroth ; 
this arbitrary limitation was produced by the reading oiv), but in general : 
in matters of this yapic, z.e. in the prosecution, in the whole bringing about, 
of this kindness (this work of love), which is ministered by us, is effected 
through our ministry (comp. lil. 3). — mpdc¢ rv Tov Kupiov dégav x.t.2.] 18 Con- 
nected by most (including Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Billroth, de 
Wette, Ewald, Neander) with r7 dvaxov. i. ju. But since in this way rpé¢ 
(which is not, with Ewald, to be taken as according to, comp. i. 20) would 
have to combine two quite different relations : ‘‘ in order to promote Christ’s 
honour and to prove our good-will ;” and since, moreover, the latter element 
would be self-evident, tame, and superfluous,—we ought rather, with Chrys- 
ostom (who, however, reads iuév instead of judv) to construe with yecporo- 
vnveic k.7.A.: elected, etc., inorder to further Christ’s honour and our good-will. 
The election of this brother had as its object, that by his co-operation in 
this matter Christ should be honoured’ and our desire and love for the 
work should not be lessened ‘‘ 0b metum reprehensionis illius, de qua mox lo- 
quitur” (Bengel), but should be maintained and advanced by freedom from 
such hindering anxiety, and by a fellow-worker thus authorized. The con- 
nection with yecpotovydel¢ x.7.2., Which Hofmann, attaching it also to cuvexd. 
quav, declares to be impossible (why ?), places the election, which had pri- 
marily a business motive, under the higher ethical point of view. 

Ver. 20. ZreAAduevor tovro] goes along with ovveréuiauev in ver. 18. We 
have sent also the brother, who is honoured by all, and in addition has been 
chosen by the churches as our associate in this matter, inasmuch as we thereby 
avoid this, that no one, etc. Riickert (comp. de Wette) arbitrarily, because 
with unnecessary harshness, holds that Paul has abandoned the construc- 
tion, and instead of writing oreAAdueda ydp, has put the participle, because 
he had had in his mind the thought: ‘‘I have caused him to be elected.” 
Hofmann connects it in an abnormal construction with rpoduu. 7yudév, which 
in itself would be admissible (see on i. 7), but cannot suit here, because 
tpd¢ tT. Tpovvu. nu. was a definition of the aim contemplated not by Paul,, 
but by the yepotovgoartec ; the connection would be illogical.—According 
to linguistic usage, oreAAduevor tovro (see Kypke, Obss. II. p. 259 f., 344 ; 
Schott on 2 Thess. p. 271) may mean: (1) making this arrangement? (so, in 


1 Riickert, though following likewise our 
mode of connection, holds that to the éd&a 
«vpiov this companionship could only have 
contributed negatively, in so far as it was a 
precaution against any suspicion falling on 
the apostle, which suspicion—according to 
a mode of view also Pauline—would have 
been transferred to Christ. Why, then, not 
positively also? The brother had in fact 
been chosen as a travelling associate co- 


operating in the work of collection, so that 
by his election the work might be prose- 
cuted more extensively and more success- 
fully. And thus the choice of this brother 
served positively to glorify Christ; hence 
also mpis .. . S6éav is not to be held, with de: 
Wette, as ‘* rather unsuitable.” 

2 In this case rodtTo would not have to be: 
taken as equivalent to émi todro (preparing: 
ourselves for this), but as simple accusative 


E94 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the main, Kypke, Riickert, Hofmann), in which case there is not brought 
out any significant bearing of the words, and besides, the aorist participle 
could not but be expected ; or (2) inasmuch as we draw back from this, 
shrink from and avoid this (Hesychius : oréAAcodar’ poBeiodar); so Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Luther, and most, following the Itala and Vulgate : 
‘¢ devitantes,” Gothic : ‘‘ bivandjandans.” Comp. LXX. Mal. ii. 5. The 
latter is to be preferred as most appropriate in the connection, and agreeing 
with 2 Thess. ili. 6. The reading trocreAAduevoe in F G is a correct gloss. 
Paul in his humility and practical wisdom did not deem it beneath his dig- 
nity to obviate calumnies. —7oiro] would in itself be superfluous, but it 
serves as an emphatic preparation for the following yu ri «:7.2. See Winer, 
@- 152 [E. T. 200]. — ph tee jude poufo.| ph after the notion of anxiety 
(Baeumlein, Partik. p. 288), which lies in oreAAdu.: that no one may reproach 
us (as if we were embezzling, not dealing conscientiously with the distribu- 
tion, and the like) in this abundance. —év] in puncto of this abundance. 
Comp. év 76 evayy., ver. 18 5 év rH yap., ver. 19. — adpéryc, from adpéc, dense, 
thick, means in Homer (J/. xxii. 268, xvi. 857, xxiv. 6): ‘‘ habitudo corporis 
firma et succulenta,” Duncan, lez., ed. Rost, p. 20. Afterwards it occurs 
in all relations of the adjective, as in reference to plants and fruits (The- 
ophr., Herod. i. 17), to speech (Diog. Laert. x. 88), to tone (Athen. x. p. » 
415 A), to snow (Herod. iv. 31), etc. Hence what abundance is meant, is 
determined solely by the context. Here : abundance of charitable gifts. 
According to Wetstein, Zosimus has it also four times ‘‘ pro ingenti largiti- 
one.”’ Riickert’s proposal to understand it of the great zeal of the contributors, 
which was produced through the apostle’s ministry(r7 diax. b¢’ yudv), would 
only be admissible in the event of there being anything in the context about 
such zeal. As it is, however, év rH ddp. tavty is in substance the same as 
év TH YapiTe Tabty in ver. 19. Comp. ver. 3. 

Ver. 21. Ground of this precautionary measure. or owr anxiety is directed 

to what is good, not merely before the Lord, not merely so that we set before 

us God in this way (Prov. iii. 4), but also before men. Comp. on Rom. xii. 
17. Were it merely the former, we should not need such precautionary 
measures, since to God we redavepoueda, v. 11 ; but ‘‘propter alios fama 
necessaria est,’ Augustine. (c°) The misuse of the latter consideration is 
guarded against by évér. xvpiov. — rpovoeiv, prospicere, also in the active ; 
comp. Plato, Clit. p. 408 E ; Xen. Mem. ii. 10.3; Aelian, V. H. i. 21; 
Wisd. vi. 7 ; Hesych.: rpovoei’ éxieAcirat. — For analogous Rabbinical say- 
ings, see Wetstein. 

Ver. 22. Commendatory mention of the second companion. — airoi¢] with 
Titus and the brother already spoken of. —rdv ade2. Hu] This one, too, we 
do not know by name. ‘Hyéov does not point to him as in official relation to 
the apostle and Timothy, but denotes him as a Christian brother (see ver. 28), 
so that the #juév embraces also the readers. Conjecture has lighted (but see 
previously on ver. 18) on Hpaenetus, Rom. xvi. 5 (Grotius), on Apollos 


of the object, as: in Polyb. ix. 24. 4: mopeiay Wisd. xiv. 1; 2 Mace. v. 1. Comp. Blom- 
émevoet otéAAcodat, Arrian, An. v. 17. 4; field, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. ps 157 £. 


CHAP. -VITI., 23. 59d 
(Thomas, Lyra, and mentioned already in Theodorct) on Luke (Calvin and 
also Estius, who, however, does not discountenance the conjecture of Zenas, 
Tit. iii. 18, and Sosthenes), and even on Timothy (Cajetanus) and others. 
Wieseler (comp. on ver. 18) understands it of Tychicws, and to this Hof- 
mann also is inclined. The very plural 7juév should have precluded Riickert 
from thinking of an actual brother of the apostle ; see also on ver. 18. — 
éy Toddoicg ToAAdKig| goes with édox.: in many things many times. See on 
this collocation, Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. — vwvi dé roAd orovdaidbrepov reroud. 
k.T.A.| vvvi stands in contrast with the previous édoxipu. év ToAAoic mOAAGKIC : 
now, however, as much more zealous (than in the earlier cases) through the great 
confidence which he reposes in you. A high degree of good confidence in you 
has now increased very much his zeal. Others understand rerowSfoer x.7. A. 
of Pauls confidence, connecting it either with roAd orovdaidr. (Erasmus, Beza, 
Piscator, and others) or with cuveréuypayev (Estius, Emmerling : ‘‘ sperans ut 
bene a vobis excipiantur”). The latter is an inappropriate departure from 
the order of the words, depriving 704d crovdaiérepov of the ground assigned 
for it (and how delicately is its ground assigned by this very zezoud. 
k.7.A.!); and the former must necessarily have been denoted by a personal 
pronoun added to reratt. 

Ver. 23 f. Summary closing recommendation of all the three delegates. — 
eite irép Titov] sc. Aéyw Or ypddw. Be it that I speak on behalf of Titus, he is 
my associate and (especially) in regard to you ny fellow-worker, and my inter- 
cession is thus made with good reason. — eite adeAdol sudv] be it that they are 
brothers of ours, namely, for whom I speak, they are delegates of churches,' an 
honour to Christ, people, whose personal character and working redound to 
Christ’s honour. The words to be supplied with cite in both cases would oc- 
cur of themselves to the reader of the incomplete passage. Comp. Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. Il. p. 47 f. Observe, however, that ddedod judyv is predicative, and 
therewith qualitative ; hence the absence of the article appears to be strictly 
regular,* denoting the category to which the subjects meant in this second 
half of the verse belong, and therefore neither unsuitable (Riickert) nor yet 
erroneous (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 76 [E. T. 87]; comp. Hofmann). — juév] 
as in ver. 22. The distinguishing of the two others from Titus, who holds 
a higher position, by the qualitative adeAdot 7udv, shows that adeAgoi are not 
official associates. Sucha one Titus was ; the two others, however, were only 
distinguished church-members—as it were, lay brothers commissioned ad 
hoc, the one by the churches, the other by Paul, 


1JTn so far as they did not come as private apodosis. A groundless artificial construc- 


persons, but as agents in the business of the 
church, as which they were appointed partly 
by destination of the apostle Mamely, the 
second of the brethren), partly by the choice 
of the Macedonian churches (the first of the 
brethren, ver. 18 f.). 

2 This absence of the article has led Hof- 
mann wrongly to take all the nominatives 
in ver. 23 as subjects, but vmép Titov as a 
parenthesis (‘‘ which holds true of Titus’), 
and then ovy in ver. 24 as the ovv of the 


tion, in which the awkward and unprece- 
dented parenthesis (Paul would have said 
something like Titov dé Aéyw, and that after 
ovvepyos, comp. 1 Cor. x. 29; John vi. 71) 
would be simply superfluous in the highest 
degree, since, if kowwwvds x.7.A. is the subject, 
the person thereby indicated would be self- 
evident. Just as uncalled for here after the 
short alleged protasis would be the epan- 
aleptic ody of the apodosis. Comp. on Rom. 
li. 17-24, 


596 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 24. According to the Recepta, évdeiZaoVe is here a direct exhortation, 
in conformity with the points adduced in ver. 23 (ov), to furnish towards 
those three (ei¢ avrobc) the demonstration (r7v évd.) of their love, ete., which 
demonstration of love is shown to the churches that were represented by 
them (ei¢ rpéour.). Since, however, the Recepta is a gloss (see the critical 
remarks), and évdecxviuevor is the correct reading, we have here an indirect ex- 
hortation, which puts the matter as a point of honour, and so touches the 
readers more effectively, without directly making a demand on them. 
‘* When you accordingly show towards them the demonstration of your love and 
of what we have boasted regarding you, you do it im presence of the churches.” 
In this way ei¢ airobe and ei¢ rpdowrov tov éxxA. emphatically correspond with 
each other, and after the participle évdecv. the second person of the present 
indicative of the same verb is to be supplied. Comp. Soph. O. C@. 520 ; Hi. 
1428 (1434): ra rpiv eb Séuevor Tad Oe radu, se. eb Vioe. See Schneidewin in 
loc., and, in general, Doederl. de brachyl. 1831, p. 10 f.; also Dissen, ad Dem. 
de Cor. 190, p. 359. We might also simply supply the imperative éoré with 
évdsixv. (see on Rom. xii. 9), so that also with this reading there would be a 
direct, stern summons. But with the former interpretation the contextually 
appropriate emphasis of ei¢ péowroyv Tév éxkA. Comes Out more strongly and 
more independently. — On points of detail we may further observe—(1) The 
ovv does not draw the inference simply from the second half of ver. 23, but 
from both halves, since the exclusion of reference to Titus is not warranted 
by ei¢ mpéour. t. éxxA., Which, in fact, suits all three together, and 7yév kav- 
anoéwc x.T.A. includes specially a glance’ at the apostle’s relation to Titus ; 
comp. ver. 6, vii. 14. (2) Ipéowzov is here also not (see oni. 11) person, which 
would be against the usage of the N. T., and, besides, in the singular would 
be unsuitable here ; but ei¢ spécwrov means to the face, i.e. coram in the sense 
of the direction. The conception, namely, which Paul wishes to excite in 
the minds of his readers, is this, that in those three men they have to think 
of the churches themselves, whose instruments these men are in the matter 
of the collection, as present and as witnesses of the demonstrations of love 
that fall to the share of the representatives, and to measure their demeanour 
towards them accordingly. According to this view, every evidence of love, 
which is shown to these men, comes, when it takes place, before the eyes of 
the churches (ideally present in the case). The churches stand by and look 
on. (3) THe ayaryc tu. is not the love to Paul (Grotius, Billroth, de Wette, 
Ewald, and others, following Chrysostom and Theophylact), but the Chris- 
tian brotherly love, which thereupon has its definite object marked out by ei¢ 
abrobe. —On ry évdersw évdcixvveSa, comp. Plat. Legg. 12, p. 966 B. The 
demonstration of the boasting : namely, how true it was. Comp. vii. 14. 


Norres By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(u5) ‘* Deep poverty.’’ Ver. 2. 


That this phrase is not a figure of speech appears from what is said in Ar- 
nold’s ‘‘Roman Commonwealth” : ‘‘ The condition of Greece in the time of 
Augustus was one of desolation and distress. ... It had suffered severely by 


NOTES. 59 


being the seat of the successive civil wars between Cesar and Pompey, between 
the Triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius, and lastly, between Augustus and An- 
tonius. Besides, the country had never recovered from the long series of mis- 
eries which had succeeded and accompanied its conquest by the Romans ; and 
between those times and the civil contest between Pompey and Cesar, it had 
been again exposed to all the evils of war when Sylla was disputing the pos- 
session of it with the general of Mithridates. . . . The provinces of Macedonia 
and Achaia, when they petitioned for a diminution of their burdens inthe reign , 
of Tiberius, were considered so deserving of compassion that they were trans- 
ferred for a time from the jurisdiction of the Senate to that of the Emperor’ 
[as involving less heavy taxation]. 


(v°) ‘* Singleness of heart.’’ Ver. 2. 


Dr. Meyer adheres to the original and natural meaning of the word, which, 
however, both in the A. V. and in the Revision, is rendered ‘liberality,’ and 
justly, if a single word is to be employed. Doubtless it expresses both the 
quality and the quantity of the gifts, or it may be that the generic term is em- 
ployed for one of its specific manifestations. 


(w’) <«(They gave) of their own accord.” Ver. 3. 


The Authorized Version renders this clause, ‘they were willing of them- 
selves” ; but this is not what the Apostle says. He speaks not of will, but of 
deed, and the correct rendering, quoted above and found in the Revision, is 
sustained by all authorities. 


(x5) ** The sincerity of your love.’’ Ver. 8. 


Almsgiving, in obedience to a command or to satisfy conscience, is not an act 
of liberality. What is not spontaneous is not liberal. Paul therefore would 
not coerce the Corinthians by a command. The real test of the genuineness of 
any inward affection is not so much the character of the feeling as it reveals 
itself in our consciousness, as the course of action to which it leads. Many per- 
sons, if they judge themselves by their feelings, would regard themselves as 
truly compassionate ; but a judgrnent founded on their acts would lead to the 
opposite conclusion (Hodge). 


(xy) became poor. Ver.:9. 


Dr. Meyer is undoubtedly right in rendering the verb thus, and in explaining 
it to refer not to our Lord’s outward poverty during his earthly life, but to the 
kenosis, the self-impoverishment in laying aside the glory of His divine majes- 
ty. Indeed, the connection requires this, for what Paul quotes the case for is 
not Christ’s remaining in the poverty He had on earth, but His relinquishing 
the riches He had in heaven, and a similar renunciation was what He asked of 
the Corinthians. 


~ 


(z>) *‘ Perform the doing of it.” Ver. 11. 


This awkward and tautologous expression is well replaced in the Revision 
by the more accurate ‘‘ complete the doing of it.” 


598 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(a°) ** That there may be equality.” Ver. 14. 


This is not communism. The New Testament teaches (1) that all giving is 
voluntary. A man’s property is hisown. It is indeed amoral duty for him 
to give to the needy, but this is one of those duties which others cannot en- 
force as a right belonging to them. (2) The end of giving is to relieve neces- 
sities. The equality, therefore, that is aimed at is not an equality as to the 
amount of property, but equal relief from the burden of want, as the whole 
passage shows. (3) There is a special obligation to relieve fellow-Christians, 
because they with us are members of Christ’s body, and because there is no 
need to fear that the giving will encourage idleness or vice. (4) The poor 
have no right to depend upon the benefactions of the rich. See 2 Thess. iii. 
10. Thus the Scriptures avoid the injustice of agrarian communism, and also 
the heartless disregard of the poor. Were these principles carried out, there 
would be among Christians neither idleness nor want (Hodge). 


(B®) ‘* God which putteth the same earnest care.” Ver. 16. 


The Apostle attributes the zeal of Titus to God, yet we cannot doubt that 
this zeal was the spontaneous effusion of his own heart, and an index and ele- 
ment of his character. The instance shows therefore that God can and does 
control the inward acts and feelings of men without interfering either with 
their liberty or their responsibility. 


(c°) Regard for appearances, Ver. 21. 


There is great practical wisdom and a very useful lesson in this verse. 
There is no sense in trifling with one’s reputation. ‘‘ We are bound to act in 
such a way that not only God, who sees the heart and knows all things, may 
approve our conduct, but also so that men may be constrained to recognize 
our integrity.”” Hence the Apostle prevented all misrepresentation by having 
another brother to join in the distribution of the money and audit the accounts. 


CHAPHIRE C1 599 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 2. 2 tuév] BC &, min. Ambrosiast. Pelag. and several vss. have only 
juov, So also Lachm. and Rick. But é§ was not understood and was found 
superfluous. Why should it be added?—Ver. 4. After tavry Elz. has rie 
Kavy7cews, in Opposition to BC D* F G &* min. and several vss. and Fathers. 
An addition by way of gloss from xi. 17.— Ver. 5. The readings rpd¢ tude and 
mpoernyyeAuévny (Lachm. Riick.; Tisch. has adopted only the latter) have 
preponderant, and the latter through the accession of C & decisive, attestation ; 
mpoernyy. is also to be preferred on this account, that mpoxatnyy. might very 
easily arise through alliteration after the previous mpoxatapric. Reiche has un- 
satisfactorily defended the Recepta cic (which crept in easily from viii. 6) and 
mpoxatnyy. — Ver. 7. mpoampsitat] Lachm. Rick. read xpogpyra:, following 
BCFEG &8 31, Chrys. ms. Cypr. Aug. Pel. and several vss. But the sense: 
prout destinavit, presented itself to the not further reflecting copyists as so 
natural, that with the similarity of the two forms the present might drop out 
far more easily than come in.— Ver. 8. dvvatdc] Lach. and Riick. read dvvarei. 
It has, indeed, the attestation of BC* D* FG (?) &; but if dvvarei were 
the original reading, the gloss would not have been duvaréc simply, but duvard¢ 
éo7., aS in Rom. xiv. 4. or diévarar. — Ver. 10. orépua] B D* F G 80, have 
oxdpov. So Lachm. and Riick. Occasioned by the thought of the orépov 
following. — yopnyyoe. . . . TAnfuvel . . . avénoe| Elz. has yopnyjoa. . . 
rAndivae . . . avéjoat, in opposition to B C E* FG 8, min. Syr. Arr. Copt. 
Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. The future was wrongly 
taken in the sense of wish, and accordingly, aided perhaps by the recollection 
of such passages as 1 Thess. ili. 11, 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 5, was changed into 
the optative.' \“‘o also in Rom. xvi. 20, instead of ovvtpie:, ovvtpipar crept 
into A, vss. and Wathers. — Ver. 15. dé after ydpic is, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
to be deleted on preponderating evidence. 


Conrents.— By a delicate turn in vv. 1 and 2 Paul begins once more from 
the work of collection, and impresses on his readers : (1) that they should 
make ready the bounty soon, before his arrival, vv. 3-5 : further, (2) that they 
should give amply, vv. 5 and 6 ; and (8) that they should give with all will- 
ingness, ver. 7; whereupon (4) he points them to the blessing of God, 
vy. 8-11, and, finally, brings into prominence the religious consequence 
of the thanksgivings towards God, which their beneficence will call forth, vv. 
12-14. An utterance of thanks to God forms the conclusion, ver. 15. 

Ver. 1. Since the yép connects the verse with what precedes, not only does 
the opinion of Selmer, that chap. ix. contains a separate Epistle, fallto the 


1 ¥For that these forms are not infinitives, is abundantly shown in Fritzsche, Diss. IT, 
p. 82 ff. 


600 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ground, but also the hypothesis, that Paul writes as if he were beginning a 
new topic,—on the basis of which, e.g. Emmerling (comp. Neander) thinks 
that between the composition of chap. vii. and that of chap. ix. a consid- 
erable time had elapsed. Against this may be urged also the fact that in 
new sections he does not begin with zepi pév, but with repi dé (1 Cor. vii. 
1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xvi. 1). Estius is right in saying that the apostle speci- 
fies with ydp the reason why~-he, in what goes before (viii. 24), had 
exhorted them not to collecting, but to affectionate receiving of the 
brethren. Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 21: ‘‘ Laute exeipite fratres, id 
moneo (vili. 24) ; nam praeter rem ad liberalitatem denuo quidem provocarem 
ad eam jam propensos homines,” ver. 2. So also Schott, Jsag. p. 240 ; Bill- 
roth, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander ; but there is no indication of a contrast 
with the Gentile-Christian churches (as if the dysoc were the ékkAyoia kar’ 
soxhv), although Hofmann imports it. — pév] To this the dé in ver. 3 corre- 
sponds. See on that passage. The counter-remark of de Wette (who, 
with Osiander and Neander, takes the pév as solitarium), that dé in ver. 3 
makes a contrast with ver. 2, does not hold good, since the contrast is 
quite as suitable to ver. 1 (though having respect to what is said in ver. 
2). Even in classic writers (often in Thucyd.) the clauses correspond- 
ing to each other with yév and o6é are found separated by intervening 
clauses. See Kiihner, II. p. 428. —rie dvaxoviag ti¢ sig 7. dy.| aS In Vill. 4. 
Beza is incorrect (see ver. 2) in saying that the bringing over only is meant. 
The word itself corresponds to the idea of Christian fellowship in love, in 
which the mutual activity of love is a constant debitwm ministerium (Rom. 
xiii. 8 ; Heb. vi. 10; 1 Pet. iv. 10), after the example of Christ (Matt. xx. 
28 ; Luke xxii. 26 f.). Comp. Gal. v. 138. — mepiccdv poi éori| 2.€. I do not 
need writing, namely, to effect my object. —ré ypddew] with article, because 
the writing is regarded as actual subject. 


Remarxk.-—Certainly Paul has written of the collection both in chap, viii. and 
again in what follows ; and he meant it so, otherwise he would have ended the 
section with chap. viii. But he delicately makes a rhetorical turn, so that, in 
order to spare the readers’ sense of honour, he seems not to take up the subject 
again, but to speak only of the sending of the brethren; and he annexes to 
that what he intends still to insert regarding the matter itself. Zoga¢ dé toiTo 
motel, WoTE udAAov avtode éetiondoacbat, Theophylact and Chrysostom. Proba- 
bly, when he wrote viii. 24, he meant to close the section with it, but—perhaps 
after reading over chap. viii. again—was induced to add something, which he 
did in this polite fashion (rq tovadty TOv Adywv weGddy~, Theodoret). Hotmann’s 
idea—that recommendation of -the collection itself was superfluous, but that there 
had been delay in carrying it out, etc.—is quite in accordance certainly 
with vv. 1-5, but from ver. 5 to the end of the chapter there again follow 
instructions and promises, which belong essentially to the recommendation 
of the collection itself. 


Ver. 2. Tiv rpoSvuu. iuov] Riickert infers from the whole contents of the 
two chapters that the inclination is only assumed as still existing, and no 
longer existed in reality ; but his inference is unjust, and at variance with 


CHAP) IM.5+3. 601 


the apostle’s character. Already, a76 zépvox (viii. 10) have the readers begun 
to collect, and the work of love, in fact, needed only the carrying out, 
which Paul intends by chap. vili. and ix. to procure. —jwv itrép ty. Kxavy. 
Maxed. | of which I make my boast in your favour (in your recommendation) 
to the Macedonians ; for the Corinthians were made by Paul to favour the 
collection. On xavydoua, with the accusative of the object, comp. vii. 14, 
x. 8, xi.30 ; LXX. Prov. xxvii. 1; Lucian, Ocyp..120 ; Athen. xiv. p. 627C. 
On the present Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘ Adhuc erat P. in Macedonia.” — 
btt’Ayaia wapeck. ard Tépvor| SO ran the kavyoua: that Achaia has been in 
readiness (to give pecuniary aid to promote it) since the previous year. Paul 
says ’Ayaia, not iueic (comp. ver. 3), because he repeats words actually used 
by him. These concerned not only Corinth, but the whole province, in 
which, however, the Corinthian was the central church. Comp. oni. 1. — 
kal 6 & tuav Cidoc’* «.7.A.] is, by way of attraction, an expression of the 
thought : your zeal wrought forth from you as stimulating to them. Comp. 
from the N. T. Matt. xxiv. 17 ; Luke xi. 18. See on Matt. /.c. and Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 893; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 5. —rtov¢e rieiovac} 
the majority of the Macedonians, so that only the minority remained unin- 
fluenced. 


Remarx.—Paul might with perfect truth stimulate (1) the Macedonians 
by the zeal of the Corinthians, because the latter had begun the work earlier 
than the former, and were already dro wépvor. in readiness ; and then (2) the 
Corinthians, again, by the example of the Macedonians (viii. 1 ff.), since the 
latter, after having followed the Corinthians in the prosecution of the work, 
had shown such extraordinary activity as in turn to serve the Corinthians 
a model and a stimulus to further beneficence. Is itnot possible that in the 
very same affair first A should be held up as a model to B, and then, according 
to the measure of the success, conversely B to A? Hence Theodoret and 
many (comp. also Chrysostom) have rightly remarked on the wisdom in the 
apostle’s conduct ; whereas Riickert declares this conduct of his to be unwise 
(of its morality he prefers to be silent), unjustly taking it for granted that his 
kavyao9a: regarding the Corinthians was untrue. See vii. 14. De Wette also 
thinks that the apostle is not free from human error here. (p*)— That in 
av9aipero., at viii. 3, there is no contradiction with ix. 2, see on viii. 3. 


Ver. 8. Connection: Although in regard to the collection I do not need to 
write to you, and that for the reason stated in ver. 2, Ihave yet not been able 
to omit the sending of the brethren for this purpose, in order that, etc. Paul 
by this would direct attention not to the general object of this mission, but 
to the special one of having all things ready before his arrival. See what 
follows. On pév . . . dé, which may often be translated etsi . . . tamen, 
comp. Xen. Anabd, ii. 8. 10, and Kiihner in loc. The same is more strongly 


1The form 70 ¢jAos is found herein BN though it really occurs in Clem. Cor. i. 4 
(Lachm. ed. min.) ; it has much stronger at- (thrice) and 6, and Ignatius, 77ad/. 4 (Dressel), 
testation in Phil. iii. 6. Running counter to and hence was doubtless known to the 
the usage of the whole N. T..it must be — copyists. | 
considered as an error of the copyists, 


602 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


expressed by pév . . . buwc dé, Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 76, or pay... 
pévto, Viger. p. 586. — rove adeAdobc| Titus and the two others, viii. 17 ff. — 
TO Kabynua nudv Td drép du.| On account of the following év 7 pépe TobTw, 
which first adds the special reference to the general, is not to be understood 
of the special xavyaoda described. in ver. 2, but is to be taken generally: in 
order that that, of which we boast on your behalf (xabynua is here materies glori- 
andi, and not equivalent to kabynouc), might not become empty (1 Cor. ix. 15), 
z.e. might not be found without reality in this point, in- the matter of the 
collection,—if, namely, on our arrival it should be found that your benevo- 
lent activity had come to a standstill or become retrograde. See ver. 4. In 
the addition év 76 wéper tobTw (Comp. iii. 10) there lies an ‘‘aeris cum tacita 
laude exhortatio” (Estius) ; for Paul has not a similar anxiety in respect to 
other sides of the xatyyua (comp. vii. 4). Billroth cqnsiders év rt. wépec r. as 
pointing to ver. 4, and takes 70 xabynua x.7.4. of the special boast in ver. 2 : 
‘“in this respect, namely, inasmuch as, if Macedonians come with me... we 

. are put to shame.” Involved, because iva cadac . . . 7re lies between ; 
and at variance with the parallel év ry taoordoe: tatty of ver. 4. —iva Kado 
x.7.A.| forms, with the following paruc x.7.2., a positive parallel to the 
previous negative iva wy 7d Kabynua . . . TobT~. Comp. on iva repeated in 
parallel clauses, Rom. vil. 13; Gal. ii. 14, iv. 5. 

Ver. 4. Lest perhaps, etc.; this is to be guarded against by the rapeckevao- 
pévot yte. — édv EAS wor k.T.A.| if there shall have come, etc., namely, as giving 
escort after the fashion of the ancient church. See Acts xvii. 14, 15, al.; 2 
Cor. i. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Rom. xv. 24. — Makeddvec] Macedonians without 
the article. — drapacxevacrove| not in readiness (often in Xen., as Anab, i. 5. 
9) ; amapdoxevoc is more frequent, and the two words are often interchanged 
in the mss.; see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 6. Here it is equivalent 
to : so that you are not ready to hand over the money ; the expression is 
purposely chosen in reference to ver. 2. — éueic] see ver. 3. But because this 
being put to shame in the case supposed would have involved the Corin- 
thians as its originators, Paul with tender delicacy (not serene pleasantry, 
as Olshausen thinks), moving the sense of honour of the readers, adds par- 
enthetically : iva uw} Agyouev byweic. —év tH brootdce: tatty] in respect of this 
confidence, according to which we have maintained that you were in readi- 
ness. Comp. xi. 17; Heb. iii. 14, xi, 13 LX. Psi axe eee 
5 ; Ruth i. 12 ; and passages in Wetstein ; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 13898. So 
Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and 
others, including de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. But others take it as 
quite equivalent to év 76 péper toiTw, ver. 3: in hae materia, in hoc argumento 
(gloriationis). Comp. Vulgate : in hac substantia. So Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Kypke, Munthe, and others, including 
Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald. Linguistically correct, no doubt 
(Polyb. iv. 2. 1; Casaubon, ad Polyb. i. 5. 8, p. 111 ; Diodorus, i. 3 ; comp. 
also Heb. i. 8, and Bleek, Heb. Br. Il. 1, p. 61 f.), but here a point quite 
unnecessary to be mentioned. And why should we depart from the mean- 
ing : confidence, when this is certain in the usage of the N. T., and here, as 
at xi. 17, is strikingly appropriate ? The insertion of iva py A. dueig forms 


GHAP, IX.,'d,.6. 603 


no objection (this in opposition to Riickert), since certainly the putting to 
shame of the apostle in regard to his confidence would have been laid to 
the blame of the Corinthians, because they would have frustrated this con- 
fidence ; hence there is not even ground for referring that insertion merely 
to karaocy. exclusive of év rt. broor. r. (Hofmann). Lastly, the explanation 
of Grotius: in hoe fundamento meae jactationis, has likewise, doubtless, 
some support in linguistic usage (Diodor. i. 66, xiii. 82, al. ; LXX. Ps. lxix. 
2; Jer. xxili. 22, a/.), but falls to the ground, because ric xavy. is not gen- 
uine. . 

Ver. 5. Ovv] in pursuance of what was said in ver. 4. —iva] comp. viii. 
6. —mpoéAd.] namely, before my arrival and that of the Macedonians pos- 
sibly accompanying me. The thrice-repeated xpo- is not used by accident, 
but adds point to the instigation to have everything ready before the apos- 
tle’s arrival. — rpoxartapric. | adjusted beforehand, put into complete order before- 
hand, Hippocr. p. 24, 10; 18. — rv rpoernyyeAuévgy ebdoyiav buov]| your bless- 
ing promised beforehand (by me). See vv. 2-4. On zxpoer., comp. Rom. 
i. 2. Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, and some others at variance with the 
context, take it : the blessing formerly promised by you. — ebioyia is a char- 
acteristically conciliatory (kai +t mpooyyopia aitove éreomdcato, Chrysostom) 
designation of the collection, inasmuch as it is for the receivers a practical 
blessing proceeding from the givers (¢.e. rAnduopd¢g ayadoy é&& éxovordtyrtoc, 
d:dduevoc, Phavor.). Comp. on eivdAoyia in the sense of good deed, LXX. 
Gen. xxxiil. 11 ; Judg. i. 15 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 26; Ecclus. xxxix. 22 ; Wisd. 
xv. 19; Eph. i. 8. — ratty éroiuny civac obtwe Oc x.t.A.] the intended conse- 
quence of mpoxatapr. t. tpoer. eva. buoy, so that the infinitive in the sense of 
Gore (Kiihner, II. p. 565, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 3) and rairyv, which attaches 
itself more emphatically to what has to come than to what goes before 
(Hofmann), are used anaphorically (Bernhardy, p. 283) : that this may be in 
readiness thus like blessing and not like covetousness, in such manner that it 
may have the quality of blessing, not of covetousness ; in other words, that 
it may be liberal, which is the character of eiAoyia, and not sparing, as cov- 
etousness shows itself in giving. Ieovetia does not mean here or anywhere 
else parsimony (Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, and many others); but Paul con- 
ceives of the sparing giver as covetous, in so far as such a man desires him- 
self to have that which he contributes, in order to increase his own, and there- 
fore gives but very scantily. Following Chrysostom (comp. Erasmus, 
Paraphr, and Beza), Billroth refers ricovegia to Paul and his colleagues: 
‘‘Your gift is to be a free, and not an extorted, one.” Against this may 
be urged as well the analogy of o¢ eiAoyiay, as also ver. 6, where the mean- 
ing of d¢ rAcovee. is represented by gerdouévwg ; hence also we must not, with 
Riickert and others, combine the ideas of willingly and unwillingly (which 
are not mentioned till ver. 7) with those of giving liberally and sparingly. 
—(kE*). On ottw¢ after its adjective, see Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 500 A. 

_ Ver. 6. Allusion to the Messianic recompense. Chrysostom aptly remarks : 
kal ordépov TO Tpayua éxddAecev, iva evbéocg tpd¢ THY avtidoow idn¢ Kai TOV apnTov 
évvofoacg padnc ort mAciova AauBdvercc h didwc. The dé is continuative, not 
restrictive, as Billroth thinks (‘‘but so much know”), since the subsequent 


604 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


én’ ebaoyiae proves that in ver. 6 exactly the same two kinds of giving are 
expressed as in ver. 5. —rovro dé] after Chrysostom and the Vulgate, is 
explained by the expositors supplying a 2éyo or ioréov. But with what 
warrant from the context ? Beza already made the admission : ‘‘ quamvis 
haec ellipsis Graeco sermoni sit ‘inusitata.” Comp. Gal. iii. 17; 1-Thess. 
iv. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 29, al., where Paul adds the verb of saying. Even the 
comparison of Phil. ili. 14, where, in fact, to the év dé its verb is brought 
from the context, does not settle the question of the asyndetic rovro (in 
opposition to Hofmann). Totiro might be regarded as the object of ozeipwy ; 
but in that case there would result for rovro an inappropriate emphasis (this 
kind of seed), secing that a oreipery was not mentioned before, and the figure 
here comesinasnew. Hence roiro may be regarded as accusative absolute (see 
on vi. 13), taking up again with special weight what was just said, in order 
to attach to it something further: Now as concerns this, namely, this o¢ 
etAoyiav, K. py Oc TAeovetiav, it ts the case that, etc. Lachmann placed 4 
oreipov . . . én’ evAoy. x. Vepices in a parenthesis. This would require us to 
supply faciat after éxaoroc, or even the more definite det (from dérqv in ver. 
7). But it would be unsuitable to assign to the important thought of ver. 6 
merely the place of a parenthetic idea. — gedopévac]| in a sparing way (Plut. 
Al. 25), so that he scatters only parsimoniously, narrowly, and scantily. 
But in gedopévoc x. Sepicec the one who spares and holds back is the giver of 
the harvest, z.e. apart from figure : Christ the bestower of the Messianic salva- . 
tion, who gives to the man in question only the corresponding lesser degree 
of blessedness. Comp. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10; Gal. vi. 7. —ém’ eidoyiarc] 
denotes the relation occurring in the case (Matthiae, p. 1870 f. ; Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. I. p. 315) : with blessings, which, namely, he, when sowing, zmparts, 
and in turn receives when reaping, i.e. according to the context, richly. 
Comp. ver. 5. In the reaping Christ is likewise the distributor of blessings, 
bestowing on him, who has sowed in a blessed way, the appropriate great re- 
ward in Messianic blessedness, On the whole figure, comp. Prov. x1. 24, xxii. 
8; Ps. cxii. 9; Gal. vi. 8,9. The plural strengthens the idea of richness, 
denoting its manifold kinds and shapes, etc. Maetzner, ad Lycurg. p. 144f.). 
The juxtaposition also serves as strengthening : é7z’ evAoy., éx’ evdoy. Comp. 
on 1 Cor. vi. 4. The fact that the measure of well-doing is conditioned by 
one’s own means, is guarded already at viii. 12. Comp. in general, Matt. 
xxv. 20 ff. See Calovius on this passage, in opposition to the misuse of it 
by Roman Catholics as regards the merit of good works—the moral measure 
of which, however, will, according tothe divine saving decree, have as its 
consequence merely different degrees of the blessedness won for believers 
through Christ. The very nature of good works, which subjectively are the 
fruits of faith and objectively the fruits of the divine preparation of grace 
(Eph. ii. 10), excludes the idea of merit.’ 

Ver. 7. But Paul does not desire them to give richly against their will ; 
hence the new exhortation: Let every one give freely and willingly ! — éxaoro¢ 
Kavac K.T.A.] as each one purposes it to himself in his heart, namely, let him give, 


1 Comp, Weiss, idl. Theol. p. 378 f. 


CHAP? Ix, 8. 605 


—a supplement, which readily flows from the previous 6 ore/pwv ; comp. the 
subsequent déryv. Let him give according to cordial, free, self-determination. 
On ri xapd., comp. tH wuyh, Gen. xxxiv. 8. The present is used, because the 
mpoatpeia Gat is conceived as only now emerging after the foregoing teaching.’ 
In zpoarpéouae (only here in the N. T., but often in the sense of resolving in 
Greek writers ; comp. 2 Macc. vi. 9 ; 3 Macc. il. 30, vi. 10 ; 4 Macc. ix. 1), 
po has the notion of the preference, which we give to that on which we 
resolve, because the simple aipeioda: has the sense of sibi eligere, where it 
likewise expresses a resolve or purpose (Xen. vii. 6. 387 ; Ages. iii. 4 ; Soph. 
Ajax, 443; Isocrates, Panath. 185). Hence paddov also, though in itself 
superfluous, may be added to mpoapeioba (Xen. Mem. il. 1. 2, iii. 5. 16, iv. 
2. 9). — éx Abmane i) &E avayxync| The opposite of xada¢ mpoaip. tr. kapd. : out of 
sadness, namely, at having to lose something by the giving, or out of neces- 
sity, because one thinks himself forced by circumstances and cannot do 
otherwise (comp. Philem. 14). ’Ex denotes the subjective state, out of which 
the action proceeds. To the éx Aime stands contrasted é ebyevdr orépvor, 
Soph. Qed. (@. 488; and to the é& avayxyc, the éx Gvuodv giAéwv, Hom. TL7. ix. 
486. —idapov yap «.t.A.| Motive for complying with this precept. The em- 
phasis is on iAapév, whereby the opposite, as the giving é« Abrne and é& avayxye, 
is excluded from the love of God. Comp. Rom. xii. 8. The saying is from 
LXX. Prov. xxii. 8, according to the reading : ayara instead of ebAoyei. It 
is wanting in our present Hebrew text. Comp. also Ecclus. xiv. 16, and 
the Rabbinical passages in Wetstein ; Senec. de benef. 11. 1. 2: ‘‘in benefi- 
cio jucundissimo est tribuentis voluntas.” Instead of déryc, dotAp or durAp 
only is found in classical authors ; in Hes. Op. 353, déry¢ also. See in gen- 
eral, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 428. 

Ver. 8 ff. After Paul has aroused them to ample and willing giving, he 
adds further the assurance, that God can bestow (vv. 8, 9), and will bestow 
(vv. 10, 11) on them the means also for such beneficence. Finally, he sub- 
joins the religious gain, which this work of contributing brings, ver. 11, 
qric KaTepyacerat K.T.A.,. On to ver. 14. 

Ver. 8. The déis continuative ; dvvardéc, however, is with emphasis pre- 
fixed, for the course of thought is : God has the power, and (ver. 10) He will 
also doit. ‘The discourse sets out from possibility, and passes over to reality. — 
raoav yap | every showing of kindness. This refers to earthly blessing, by which 
we have the means for beneficence ; see the sentence of aim, that follows. 
Chrysostom correctly says : éumAgoa: buac rooobrav d¢ dbvacIar repitrebery év TH 
piAotiwia tatty. Theodoret and Wolf, at variance with the context, hold that 
it applies to spiritual blessings; Flatt and Osiander blessings of both kinds. — 
mepiooevoa|transitive : efjicere ut largissime redundet in vos. See on iv. 15. — 
éy wavtt ravrore racav] in all points at all times all, an energetic accumulation. 
Comp. on Eph. v. 20 ; Phil. i. 8, 4. — racay abrdpxerav Eyovtec| having every, 
that is, all possible self-sufficing ; for this is the subjective condition, without 
which we cannot, with all blessing of God, have abundance eic wav épyov 


1 The dérecv, not yet taking definite shape, give, is conceived by Paul as occurring now, 
already existed amd répvor; but the definite after the readers have read ver. 6. 
determination how much each desires to 


606 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ayadév. Hence Paul brings out so emphatically this necessary subjective require- 
ment for attaining the purpose, which God connects with his objective blessing : 
in order that you, as being in every case always quite self-contented, etc. Abrdap- 
ceca is not the sufficienter habere in the sense of external position, in which 
no help from others is needed (as it is taken usually ; also by Emmerling, 
Flatt, Riickert, Osiander), but rather (comp. Hofmann also) the szbjective 
frame of mind, in which we feel ourselves so contented with what we 
ourselves have that we desire nothing from others,—the inward self-sufficing, 
to which stands opposed the rpocdeéc GAAwv (Plato, Tim. p. 88 D) and éx- 
Ovueiv Tov GAdotpiwv. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 6 ; Phil. iv. 11, and the passages in 
Wetstein. It is a moral quality (for which reason Paul could say so ecar- 
nestly év ravti ravt. rac., without saying too much), may subsist amidst very 
different external circumstances, and is not dependent on these,—which, 
indeed, in its very nature, as reAedtnc kthoewe ayadav (Plato, Def. p. 412 B), 
it cannot be. Comp. Dem. 450. 14 ; Polyb. vi. 48. 7: zpo¢ racav repicraciw 
avrapKyc. —mepiccetyte etc Trav éEpyov ayadév] that you may have abundance 
(comp. év ravi mAovtiCdéuevor, ver. 11) for every good work (work of benefi- 
cence ; comp. Acts ix. 36, and see Knapp, Opuse., ed. 1, p. 486 ff.). If 
Riickert had not taken airdpxera in an objective sense at variance with the 
notion, he would not have refined so much on zepioo., which he understands 
as referring to the growth of the Corinthians themselves: ‘‘in order that you, 
having at all times full sufficiency ... may become ever more diligent unto 
every good work.” De Wette also refines on the word, taking the participial 
clause of that, which. in spite of the repiccetoa: takes place in the same : 
‘inasmuch as you have withal for yourselves quite enough,” which would pre- 
sent a very external and selfish consideration to the reader, and that withal 
expressed of set purpose so strongly ! 

Ver. 9 connects itself with repicc. etc wav épyov ayad. This repiccetery is - 
to exhibit the fulfilment of the Scripture saying in your case: He scattered, 
He gave to the poor; His righteousness remains for ever. The quotation is 
Ps. cxii. 9 (exactly after the LXX.), where the subject is av7p 6 goBobmevoc 
tov Kbpiov. —éoxdpricer] figurative description of the beneficent man, who 
peta Oaidrciag %doxe, Chrysostom. Comp. Symmachus, Prov. xi. 24. Ben- 
gel well says: ‘‘Verbum generosum: Spargere, plena manu, sinc anxia 
cogitatione, quorsum singula grana cadant.” But that Paul (not the orig- 
inal) had in his view the image of strewing sced, is already probable from 
ver. 6, and is confirmed by ver. 10 (in opposition to Hofmann). Regard- 
ing the use in late Greek of the originally Ionic word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 218. —7 dexacoctvy] is not, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Gro- 
tius, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Vater, Emmerling, and others, to be 
taken as beneficence (Zachariae and Flatt have even : recompense), which it 
never means, not even in Matt. vi. 1; but it. always means righteousness, 





1 Regarding the notion of mévys, which cant poverty, see Arist. Piut. 552 f.; Stallb. 
does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (6 é« ad Plat. Apol. p. 28 C. Regarding avos. 
TOVvOV Kal evepyeias TO Cv éexwv, tym. M.), and egenus, esuriens, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. 
its distinction from mrwxé6s, which among p. 4381, XII. p. 465. 
the Greeks expresses the notion of mendi- 


CHAP. 1X.,120; 607 


Which, however, may, according to the context, as here (comp. Tob. xiv. 
11), be that which expresses itself by doing good. So also NPT¥, which on 
this account is often translated by éAenwootvy in the LXX. (see Gesen. Thes. 
II. p. 1151 ; Buxt. Lex. Talm. p. 1890). The Christian moral righteous- 
ness is beneficent through the love which comes from faith. Comp. Rom. 
xii. 9, x. 18-15 ; Gal. v. 6. —péve ei¢ r. aidva] is, according to Paul, to be 
‘taken quite in the full sense of the words : remains for ever (comp. Diod. 
i. 56; Lucian, Philops. 17), never ceases, either before the Parousia, when 
his dcxatoctvy continues to develop its vital activity, as in general, so spe- 
cially. through beneficent love, or affer the Parousia, when, in itself incapa- 
ble of being lost, it has its eternal subsistence in love that cannot be lost 
(1 Cor. xiii. 8, 13). Explanations, such as of a perpetua laus apud homines and 
gloriosa merces apud Deum (Estius, comp. Chrysostom, Grotius, Emmerling, 
and others), or that it applies merely to the earthly lifetime of the beneficent 
one (Beza), are at variance with the words, which affirm the pévey of the 
‘ dixatoobvy itself ; and in the N. T. pévevy cic tov aidva is always to be taken. 
in the definite sense of eternal abiding. See John viii. 34, xii. 384; Heb. 
vii. 24; 1, Pet. 1. 25; 1 John ii. 17. Comp. pévery eic Conv aidvov, John vi. 
27. Hence de Wette also takes it too indefinitely : ‘‘that the beneficence 
itself, or the means for it, has enduring subsistence.” Chrysostom and Theo- 
doret have, moreover, inverting the matter, found the beneficence here, 
which Chrysostom compares to a fire consuming sins, to be the cause of the 
justification. “It is its consequence and effect, Gal. v. 6, 22, Col. iii. 12 ff., 
al., as is the Christian righteousness of life itself, Rom. vi., viii. 4 ff. (1°) 
Ver. 10. The progress of the discourse is this : able is God, etc., ver. 8 ; 
but He who gives seed, etc., will also do it. The description of God intro- 
duced by dé contains the grownd of this promise, which rests on a syllogism 
a minori ad majus. — Who supplies seed to the sower and bread for eating, is a 
‘reminiscence of Isa. ly. 10, which is very suitable to the figure prominent in 
the context (vv. 6, 9). On Bpécuc¢ actus edendi, differing from Bpéaua, cibus, 
see on Rom. xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. viii. 4; Col. ii. 16. —Chrysostom, Castalio, 
Beza, and others, including Hofmann, rightly connect yopyyfoee with what 
follows. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Elzevir, and others, including 
Ewald and Neander, think that xa? dprov si¢ Bpdow yopry. should go together. 
This would be at variance with Isa. lv. 10, and would destroy the symmet- 
rical relation of the two parts of the verse. — yopyyioe.? x. rAnSuvel Tov oxdpov 
tudv] i.e. dropping the figure : will give and increase the means, with which 
you distribute benefits. What is given away benevolently by the readers, is 
the seed which they scatter (6 ordpoc avtév) ; hence Riickert’s idea is arbitrary 
and unnecessary, that here two clauses, yopyyfoer buiv ordpov and rAnSovei Tov 
orépov juov, are blended into one. Riickert also inappropriately thinks that 
_ Paul is not speaking at all of the present, but «wholly of the future, of the 
blessed consequences of their beneficence now asked, and that 6 ozépoc, 
therefore, does not denote what they were now to give away, but what God 


lémyopny. and xopny. are distinguished  reichen, dargeben and geben [give forih and 
simply like the German darreichen and give). 


608 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

will further bestow on them.’ At variance with the entire course of the pas- 
sage (see on ver. 8 ff.) ; and the very 6” #uoy in ver. 11 ought to have pre- 
vented the excluding of the present time. Paul intends by yopyyjou.. . 
ipav the means for the present work of collection, and only with kai avéfoex 
does he promise the blessing thenee arising for the future. This x. avg. ra 
yevonudta tie Ou. du. corresponds to the preceding kai dprov eic Bpdow : and 
will make the fruits of your righteousness grow (see on ver. 9), 7.e. and will 
cause that the blessing, which proceeds from your dcxaroctyn (what blessing 
that is, see ver. 11) may become always larger. Paul abides by the figure. 
Just as God causes dprov cic Bpdorv to grow from the natural seed, so from 
the oxépoc, which the beneficent scatters through his gifts of love. He like- 
wise causes fruits (blessings) to grow ; but because this oxépoc had been 
sown by the beneficent man in virtue of his Christian righteousness, the fruits 
produced are the yevvAuara rye diKkacoobvy¢ avrod, just as the bread-fruits, which 
the husbandman obtains from his orépoc, are the yevvquara of his diligence. 
Hence Theodoret rightly remarks: ordépov pévtor radu tHv evroiay éxarece. 
yevvquata O& dtxatootyyc tHv éx Tabty¢ BAacTdcacay aodéAgiav. — yévvnua, in the 
sense of vegetable fruit, according to late Greek ; not to be written yévyya. 
Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 29. On the figurative expression yevvgu. r. diKazoc., 
comp. Hos. x. 12. 

Ver. 11. The manner in which they will experience in themselves the 
avenoe: Ta yevviuata T. diKkatoobvyc buov just promised. — The participle is 
neither to be supplemented by éoré or éce0¥e (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt), 
nor to be attached to ver. 8, so that vv. 9 and 10 would be a parenthesis 
(Valla, Cornelius a Lapide, Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Bengel, Schulz), 
which is forbidden by the portion of the discourse beginning afresh at ver. 
10 ; but it is anacoluthic, namely, in such a way that it is attached to the 
mentally supplied logical subject of what is promised in ver. 10 (teic), and 
indeed of this whole promise, not merely of the portion of it contained in 
rAnduvel T. ordpov tuav (Hofmann) : inasmuch as you become enriched. Comp. 
oni. 7. The becoming rich in everything is, according to the connection (see 
ver. 10), an earthly enrichment, not, however, in and for itself, but with the 
telic ethical reference : sic racav dxAéryta, whereby Riickert’s objection dis- 
appears, that it would be unsuitable for the apostle to promise to his readers 
riches. Riickert understands it of a spiritual enrichment (vili. 7), and 
therefore attaches riourif. only to rie dixacoobvyc budv. This is as arbitrary 
as Hofmann’s interpretation of an internal enrichment, which makes the sow- 
ing abundant, so that they with small means are able to give more liberally 
than otherwise with large, if their growth on all sides in the Christian life 
ultimately issues in an increase of entire simplicity and self-devotion. Without 
arbitrary restriction and separation, év ravti riovz. el¢ tao. ard. can only be 
a modal definition of the whole promise yopnyfoe on to dikatoc. tuwv, — éic¢ 
racav arAér.| dradéryc does not mean even here (comp. on viii. 2) bountiful- 
ness, but singleness, simplicity of heart ; and eic expresses not the consequence 
of év x. rdouril., but the aim: for every simplicity, ¢.e. in order to bring it 
into exercise, to give it satisfaction (through the corresponding exercise of 
beneficence). The emphasis rests, as formerly on év zav7z, so here on racay, 


CHAP, TX), 12,°13. 609 


whereby attention is directed to the present work of collection and every 
one that might be set on foot in future by Paul (frie xatepy. dv juiv K.7.A.). 
— frig Katepyalerae x.7.A.] quippe quae, etc. With this the discourse makes 
the transition to set forth the religious side of this blessing of the collecting 
work, ver. 12 ff. — dv jjudv] through our means, in so far as the work of the 
axidornc, the collection, diaxoveita if’ judy, vill. 19, 20, and the apostle, for 
himself and his companions, feels so much that is elevating in this service of 
love, that he cannot let pass unmentioned. — The thanksgivers are the re- 
ceivers of the gifts of the azAéryc. The paraphrase of Grotius : ‘‘ quae causa 
est, cur nos gratias Deo agamus,” is incorrect (on account of did, and of vv. 
12, 13). —76 @e6] might belong to xarepydfeva, but is better, because in 
uniformity with ver. 12, joined to eiyapioriay as an appropriating dative 

(Bernhardy, p. 88), which is quite warranted in view of the construc- 

tion ebyaproreiv tee (comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 18 D, Apol. 8. p. 30 
A). 

Ver. 12. Confirmation of what was just said #ric karepydtera «.7.2. by the 
particular circumstances of the present collection.! — } dcaxovia tHe Aecroupy. 
ravrnc| 4.e. the service, which you render by this recrovpyia. And the work of 
collection is called Aetovpyia, in so far as it was to be regarded, according to 
its destined consecration to God, as a priestly bringing of offering (going to 
the benefit of the receivers). Comp. on Phil. 11.17, 25; Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16. 
Most others take 7 dvaxovia of the service of the apostle, who took charge of 
the collection (rv Aecrovpyiav tavrnv). But this is at variance with ver. 13, 
where ric dvakoviac tabrnc is manifestly equivalent to rH¢ dtaxoviac Tie AeiT. TabT., 
and must be understood of the service rendered by the contributors. Hence 
the activity of those conveying it is not even to be understood as included here 

(Hofmann), — ov pdvov x.r.4.] The emphasis lies on zpocavaraAnp. and repicc., 
in which case the expression with éor: denotes how the dcaxovia is as regards 
its efficacy, not simply what it effects (this would be the simple present of the 
verb). The service, etc., has not only the supplementing quality, in that it 

-makes up for what the saints lack, but also an abounding, exceedingly bliss- 

ful quality, in that it calls forth many thanksgivings towards God. Others, 
like Piscator and Flatt, connect repiccetovca 76 Oe : ‘it contributes much 
to glorify God ;” comp. Hofmann: ‘‘it makes for God a rich product.” 

Against linguistic usage, since repioceber oi tc means : I have abundance or 

superfluity in something (Thue. ii. 65. 9 ; Dion. Hal. iii. 11 ; Tob. iv. 16 ; 

John vi. 18; Luke ix. 17; comp. Luke xii. 15; Mark xii. 44). There 
must have been used eic Gedy or el¢ tv ddEav Tov Beov (Rom. v. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 
15). — On rpocavardnpsa, to fill by adding to, comp. xi. 9; Plat. Men. p. 84- 
D ; Diod. v. 71 ; Athen. 14, p. 654 D ; Wisd. xix. 4. 

Ver. 13 is not to be placed in a parenthesis ; see on ver. 14. The parti- 
ciple is again anacoluthic (comp. on ver. 11). Asif he had said before : by 
the fact that many give thanks to God, Paul now continues : inasmuch as they, 
induced by the tried character of this service, praise God on account of the sub- 

1 Nowhere has Paul expressed with so among the Greeks for the Jews was to have 
deep fervour and so much fulness as here on the quickening of the religious fellow- 


the blissful influence, which his collecting ship between them. 


| 


610 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

mission, etc.’ Hofmann considers ver. 13 as co-ordinated with ver. 11, so that 
the dofafovrec 7. 6. would be the subjects themselves performing the service, 
who by this service prove themselves to be Christians. If so, (1) we should 
have to leap over ver. 12 asa merely relative appendage of ver. 11, and to elim- 
inate it from the continuity of the chain of thought ; but it does not lend itself 
to be so dealt with either in virtue of the position assigned to it by 6r7z, or in 
virtue of the important contents of its two clauses ; (2) we should have to 
shut our eyes to the fact, that dofdfovrec 7. 0. is obviously correlative to the 
previous dua roAA. evyapiotiov TS Oecd ; finally, we should have to make the 
participial clause afterwards begin, in avery involved fashion, with é7i 
TH brotayh K.7.A., in spite of the fact that this éxi could not but at once pre- 
sent itself to, and obtrude itself upon, every reader, as the specification of 
the ground of the dofafovrec 7. Oedv (comp. ver. 15 ; Luke ii. 20 ; Acts iv. 
21; Ecclus. ii. 2). — The doxeuy ric dcaxov. r. is the indoles spectata (see on 
vill. 2) of this work of giving, according to which it has shown itself such 
as might have been expected in keeping with the Christian standard (es- 
pecially of love). So Theophylact : dua tic doxivov rabty¢ kat wenaptupynuévyg 
éxt g:AavOpuria d:axoviac. Others take the relation of the genitiveas : the ap- 
proved quality, in which this bounty has exhibited you. So Calvin (‘‘ erat enim 
specimen idoneum probandae Corinthiorum caritatis, quod erga fratres pro- 
cul remotos tam liberales erant”), Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, Ols- 
hausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander ; comp. also Hofmann, who takes rie 
diaxoviag as epexegetical genitive. But it is only in what follows that the 
ground of the praise is introduced as subsisting in the Corinthians, and that 
by a different preposition (é7/), and, besides, it is most natural to under- 
stand ric diaxoviac t. of that which is attested, so that the attested character 
of the collecting work appears as the occasion (did, see Winer, p. 357 [E. T. 
476] ; Bernhardy, p. 235) of God’s being praised on account of the obedi- 
ence of the Corinthians, etc. Observe, withal, how the actual occasion which 
primarily brings about the dozafev r. @. (dca), and the deeper ground of this 
dofdafew (eri), are distinguished. We may add that Riickert arbitrarily finds 
here an evidence that Paul in the collection had it as his aim to break down 
the repugnance of the Jewish-Christians towards the Gentile-Christians by 
this proof of the latter’s love. Comp. on 1 Cor. xvi. 1. The work of col- 
lection may have furthered this reconciliation, but this was not its aim. — 
—éni th irotayi. . . rdvtac] contains two reasons for their praising God. 
The jirst refers to the gospel of Christ (concerning Christ, ii. 12) ; on account 
of the compliance with your confession (because you are so obedient in fact to 
your Christian confession of faith), they praise God in reference to the gospel 
of Christ, which, in fact, produces such compliance of its confessors. The 
second reason refers to the persons, namely, to them, the receivers them- 


1Luther and Beza connect dca tHs Soxiuns 
mms Staxovias tavtys With ver. 12, for which 
Beza adduces the reason that otherwise 
Sogagovtes is connected with da and én 
without copula,—a reason quite untenable, 
considering the diversity of the relations 
expressed by the two prepositions! And 


how very much the symmetry of the pas- 
sage would be disturbed ! As ver. 11 closed 
with evxap. ré Few, Soalso the confirmatory 
clause closes with vdxap. Té deg, and the 
more precise explanation begins with the 
following Sa tis Sox, K.T.A, 


CHAP. IxX., 14. 611 
selves, and all Christians in general : and on account of the simplicity of the 
Sellowship (because you held the Christian fellowship in such a sincere and 
pure manner) they praise God in reference to themselves and to all, as those 
whom this drAdrye r. Kovvwviac goes to benefit. Paulrightly adds x. ei¢ ravrac; 
for by the beneficence towards the Jews the Corinthians showed, in point 
of fact, that they excluded no Christians from the sincere fellowship of love. 
The expositors connect eic¢ to evayy. 7. X. either with ri¢ duodroy. budv, so that 
duohoy. etc is said, like riori¢ etc (Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, Flatt, Riickert, 
Ewald, Osiander, and others, including Billroth), or with r7 troray@ (Chrys- 
ostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and many others), and then ¢ic¢ 
avtove x. ei¢ rdvtac With tic Kowwviac.' But this view would require the con- 
necting link of the article both before cic 7d evayy. and also before eic 
avtobc, since neither jrordocecba: nor éuoAoyeiv nor Korvwveiv is construed with 
eic, the last not even in Phil. i. 5 (in opposition to de Wette). The sugges- 
tion to which Hofmann has recourse, that the twice used eic expresses the 
direction in which both—the imoray7 ric éuodoyiac and the driérne tHe Kowvwviac 
—take place, has against it the non-insertion of the connecting article, which 
only may be rightly omitted when eic in both cases belongs to the verb 
(do&dlovrec Tr. 0.).” Riickert’s appeal to the inexactness of the language in 
this chapter is unfounded and the more to be rejected, that no fault can be 
found with the meaning—by no means tame (Osiander), but richin signifi- 
cant reference — which arises from the strictly grammatical construction. 
Observe especially the quite Pauline way of exhausting, by different prepo- 
sitions, the different characteristic aspects of the subject-matter (here the 
dokalewv Tov Gedv), which he does according to the categories of the occasion 
(dca), the ground (éri), and the point of reference (cic : with a view to). 
Comp. i. 11, Rom. iii. 25, and many other passages. — On éuoAoyia,* confession, 
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13 ; Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23; 3 Esr. ix. 8 ; not so in 
the Greek writers. The explanation consensus (Erasmus : ‘‘ quod intelligant 
vos tanto consensu obedire monitis evangelicis,” comp. Castalio, Vatablus, 
and Calvin) accords, no doubt, with the classical usage, but is at once sct 
aside by the fact that the passage must have run: 
oroTayye. 

Ver. 14. Kat abrév deface: trip bu.] does not go with repiocebovea in ver. 
12, so that ver. 13 would be a parenthesis (Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Olshausen, de Wette), because in that case Paul would have written very 
enigmatically, and must at least have continued with dvd instead of with 


> XS ~ e y, aye ary 
éTl Ti OsoAoyla TC 


1 Riickert and most others interpret: 
**on account of the sincerity of your fellow- 
ship with them and with all ;’’ but Billroth 
and Neander: ‘‘on account of the liberality 
of communication to them and to all,’— 
which, however, is quite wrong, for amAdrys 
does not mean liberality, and of the com- 
munication (which, besides, is never the 
meaning of co.vwvia at least in the N. T.; 
see on Rom. xy. 26, xii. 13, Gal. vi. 6) it could 
not be said that it had taken place /o all. 


2 This, indeed, is quite impossible accord- 
ing to Hofmann’s mistaken construing of 
éml TH VToTayy «K.T.A. aS dependent on the 
participial clause kat avrTav ... 

3 Many elder commentators quite arbitra- 
rily took rijs omodoylas for TH OMoAoyoupEry. 
So Beza: ‘de vestra testata subjectione in 
evang.”’ But Erasmus Schmid and Wolf: 
** ob subjectionem vestram, contestatam in 
evang.” (so that cis 7d evayy. is held to 
belong to THs onodoy.). 


éemiTovouvTwv, 


612 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

the dative. Nor yet does it go with dofdfovrec, in which case the dative is 
either made to depend on éri (Luther, Castalio, Bengel), or is taken instru- 
mentally (Emmerling, Billroth, Osiander, Neander; Riickert does not 
decide), for in the former case there would result an idea strange and desti- 
tute of all analogy from the N. T. (Bengel wrongly appeals to 2 Tim. i. 3); 
in the latter, «ai would be superfluous, and the prefixing of the airév would 
remain entirely unregarded. We must rather take xai airév . . . éxirofoty- 
tov together as genitive absolute (comp. the punctuation in Lachmann and 
Tischendorf, also Ewald and Hofmann), and xa? avroi means they too, by 
which is meant to be indicated the fact that, and the mode in which, on 
their side also the arAdéry¢ tie Kotvwviac, Which the Corinthians have shown, 
is returned. Thus: while they too with prayer for you long after you. The 
emergence of the genitive absolute without difference of the subject is a 
phenomenon also frequent in classical authors. See Poppo, ad Thucyd. I. 
p. 119 f.; Richter, de anacol. § 16 ; Matthiae, p. 1306 ; Bornemann, ad Act. 
xiii. 6. —defoer is not instrumental, but an accompanying accessory defini- 
tion of the mode: with prayer, amid prayer for you.’ Comp. Bernhardy, 
p-. 100 f. —Regarding ézcrofew, see on v. 2. It is the longing of pious, 
grateful love for personal fellowship with the brethren far distant. . It isa 
sheer fancy that it means maximo amore complecti (Beza and many others, 
even Billroth). — 61a tiv irepBaAdAovoav x.7.2.] reason of this pious longing : 
because the grace of God is abundant towards you. How far this was shown 
in the present instance, see ver. 18. Chrysostom well says: émrofover yap 
TOUTO Ov Ola TA YHuaTa, GAN Hote Osatai yevécbat tHo Jedouévyc buiv yapitoc. Even 
in this 0. r. imepBa2A. ydprv, Hofmann finds the contrast between the Israel- 
itic Christians and the Gentile Christians, who before had lived beyond the 
pale of the church of God, and without God in the world. If Paul had 
meant this relation, he would have expressed it (comp. Eph. il. 12). — é@’ byiv 
belongs to irepBaar. Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen, Anab. iv. 2.18. éri denotes 
the object, to which the activity has passed over. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 
290 [E. T. 337]. (e°) 

Ver. 15. At the close we have an exclamation of gratitude springing out 
of deep piety (comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 33 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 57; Gal. i.5 ; 1 Tim. 
i. 17), without any special purpose (such as to awaken humility, Beza ; conip. 
Chrysostom), but issuing out of the fuller craving of the heart, without 
being intended (as Hofmann holds) to'impress the duty of willingly con- 
tributing gifts which are so small in comparison. — The dwped is consequence 
and evidence of the ydpic, ver. 14. Comp. Rom. v. 15, 17. — éni rh avexdiy. 
aitov dupea] on account of his indescribable gift. What is meant by this is in- 
dicated to the Christian consciousness by dvexdiuyy. (comp. Rom. xi. 33 ; 
Eph. iii. 18 f.), namely, the whole wonderful and inexpressibly blissful eork 
of redemption. It is for this, and not simply for the grace imparted to the 


1Itis the Christian intercession of thank- 
fulness for the benefactors, for whom the 
praying heart yearns. Hofmann goes be- 
yond the text when he imports into this 
prayer the definite contents : that God would 


keep the Achaean Christians till the time, 
awhen Jesus shall bring together the scattered 
children of God with those of the Holy Land 
and people. Matt. xxiv. 81 treats of the 
Parousia, and is not at all relevant here. 


NOTES. 613 


Gentiles (Hofmann), that Paul gives thanks, because it is the gracious fown-_ 
dation of such fellowship in love, and of its blissful working. Others’ under- 
stand it of the previously discussed happy result of the work of collection 
(Calvin,“Estius, Bengel, Billroth, Rickert, Osiander ; comp. Ewald, who 
takes ydpic x.t.A. as the quoted closing words of the prayer of gratitude on 
the part of the church at Jerusalem itself); but in that case davexdiqynroc ap- 
pears to be much too strong an epithet, whereas it is quite suitable to the 
highest of all God’s gifts, the dwped kav’ éEoxgv. Comp. Rom. v. 15 ; Heb. 
vi. 4. — On dvexdiyyftw, comp. Arrian, -Anab. p. 310 : tiv avexduhyytov TéAuav. 


(a) 


Notrres By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(p°) Pauls earnestness. Ver, 2. 


There does not seem any ground for the view of Stanley and Plumptre that 
the urgency of Paul’s appeal here indicates a latent misgiving whether he had 
not unconsciously overstated the fact, and had mistaken ‘‘the will” that had 
shown itself for an actual readiness to send off the money whenever it was 
called for. What he told the Macedonians was simply that the Corinthians were 
prepared — a preparation consisting in alacrity of mind for the work, readiness 
of purpose, which had not yet been carried out. Paul’s urgency is due sim- 
ply to the desire to have his boasting made good, as the next two verses show, 


(x°) ‘‘ Not of covetousness.’’ Ver. 5. 


The Revised Version renders this ad sensum, if not literally, ‘‘ not of extor- 
tion.’’ After giving due weight to Dr. Meyer’s words, it still seems that this 
thought is necessarily implied in the contrast with a liberal, cheerful giver. To 
give scantily and grudgingly because of covetousness is to give because the gift 
is felt to be extorted. 


» (8°) The promise to the tiberal. Ver. 9. 


An objection may be made to the truth of this promise on the ground that 
we do not always see liberality attended by riches. Hodge replies that this and 
similar passages in the Old Testament and the New are not to be taken liter- 
ally or applied universally. They were intended to teach three truths: 1. The 
tendency of things. Righteousness tends to produce blessedness, as evil tends 
to produce misery. 2. The general course of divine providence. God does, as 
a general rule, prosper the diligent and bless the righteous. Even worldly wis- 
dom holds the maxim that honesty is the best policy. 3. Even in this life 
righteousness produces a hundred-fold more enjoyment than unrighteousness 
does. In sickness, in bereavement, in poverty, the good man is far happier 
than the wicked. It is therefore a general law that he that scattereth 
increaseth, and he that gives shall have wherewith to give. 


1To these belongs Grotius also, who in ostom and Theophylact quote both ex- 
his acute way remarks: “‘ Paulus in grati- planations, but incline more to that which 
arum actionem se iHis in Judaea fratribus we have adopted. 
adjungit, et quasi Aven illis accinit.’’ Chrys- 


614 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(a®) ‘ The exceeding grace of God in you.’’ Ver. 14. 


The grace which had rendered them such cheerful and liberal givers. The 
whole section is notable for the light it throws upon Christian morals, There 
is no praise of voluntary poverty and no denunciation of property, but an ex- 
hortation to the right use of worldly means. Itis remarkable, as Stanley says, 
how Paul’s inculcation of beneficence differs from the mechanical view of it 
entertained by the Pharisees, the Koran, and some of the mediaeval saints. 
They have dwelt upon the amount bestowed as in itself drawing down the 
divine blessing. The Apostle, even in his undisguised eagerness to obtain the 
largest possible contribution, insists with no less eagerness on the spirit in 
which it is given. 


(n°) The unspeakable gift. Ver. 15. 


Most readers will agree with Dr. Meyer in referring this burst of exalting 
praise to the highest of all God’s gifts. Shore thinks that such a reference 
makes too wide a deviation from the immediate context. Plumptre cannot 
make up his mind as to what the Apostle intended, and thinks that he did not sub- 
ject ‘his utterance of praise to a minute analysis.’’ But surely it is most con- 
sistent with the natural force of the words, the analogy of Scripture, and the 
impetuous fervour of the Apostle, to think that he has in mind the one, great, 
supreme, all-comprehending gift of God, in the mission of His own Son. And 
so far from there being any impropriety in the sudden change, one may well 
say with Principal Brown : ‘“‘ This exquisite and resistless outburst of thanks- 
giving for that gift which not only transcends all our givings, but originates 
them all, is as sublime as it is suitable at us close of the whole subject of yee 
collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem.’ 


CHAP. X. 615 


eb WR, Xx. 


Ver. 7. Instead of aq’ éavrod read é¢’ éavrov ; see the exegetical remarks. — 
After jueic Elz. has Xpiorov, An addition condemned by a great preponder- 
ance of evidence. — Ver. 8. re] is wanting in BF G, min. Chrys. Theophyl. 
Bracketed by Lachm., and deleted by Riick. But how easily might the omis- 
sion of the particle take place, as it might quite well be dispensed with, while 
there was no ground whatever for inserting it ! — kai before wepioo. has against it 
the principal uncials andvss. An addition produced by the sense of climax. — 
quiv|is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted, with Lachm.and Tisch. A 
supplementary insertion, instead of which po is also found.— Vv. 12, 13. 
The words ov ovvivew: jueic dé, which follow after éwvrod¢ éavroi¢ in the Recepta, 
and are defended by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Reiche, are wanting in D* FG 109, 
codd. of the Itala, Ambrosiast. Auct. gr. de singul. cleric. (in Cyprian) Vigil. 
taps. Idacius, Sedul. (while in 74** Vulg. Lucif. Pel. Fulg. only ov ovviodary is 
wanting). Condemned by Mill, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Griesb. Rosenm. Flatt, 
Fritzsche, Billr., Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 165 f.; Ewald. But the very fact that 
we have only Occidental evidence on the side of the omission makes the latter 
suspicious, and the difficulty of the words (which, with the reference of adroit 
to Paul so easily suggesting itself after dAAd, cannot at all be overcome), while 
in the event of their omission the passage runs on smoothly, makes their dele- 
tion appear an expedient critically violent and resorted to in the interest of 
explanation. Where od ovrioic.v only is wanting (see above), 7eic 0é appears to 
be an imperfect restoration of the imperfect text. — The following kavynobuebu 
also is wanting in D* Clar. Germ., while F G, Boern. Auct. de singul. cler. read 
Kavyouevot. But if the word had not been original, but added by way of gloss, 
the makers of the gloss after their mechanical fashion would not have used the 
future, but the present, in accordance with the previous toAwoyer, to which the 
comparison of ver. 15 also might induce them. Hence it is to be assumed that 
in the witnesses adduced above xavynodueha has dropped out. By what means we 
do not know ; perhaps itis simply due to the similar fina] letters in dwerpA and 
KkavynooueGA. The cavyduevor, subsequently introduced instead of cavyqodpefa, 
is to be considered as a critical restoration, made under the influence of ver. 
15. — Ver. 14. ov ydp &¢ un] Lachm. reads oc ydp uy, on the authority of B and 
two min. only, so that he puts a note of interrogation after éuvrovc. Too weakly 
attested. 


Ch. x.—xiii. contain the third chief section of the Epistle, the apostle’s 
polemic vindication of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, and then the conclu- 
sion. 

Ch. x. 1-18. After the introduction of vv. 1, 2, which plunges at once in 
mediam rem, Paul, in the first place, makes good against his opponents the 
power of his genuinely apostolic working (vv. 1-8), in order to repel the 


616 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

malicious attack that he was strong only in letters (vv. 9-11). This leads 
him to set forth in contradistinction the very different modes of self-judg- 
ment, which are followed by him and his arrogant opponents (vv. 12-16), 
after which there is further held up to the latter the Christian standard of 
self-boasting (vv. 17, 18). 


Remarx.—The difference of the subject-matter—with the importance of that 
which had now to be decided—and the emotion excited in the high and pure 
self-consciousness of the grievously injured Paul, so sufficiently explain the 
‘change of tone which at once sets in, and this tone, calculated for the entire 
discomfiture of his enemies, is just in the last part of the Epistle —after the 
church as such (as a whole) had been lovingly won over-—so suited to its ob- 
ject, that there is no ground at all for the hypothesis of ch, x.—xiii. 10 having 
formed a separate Epistle (see Introd. § 2). (1°) 


Ver. 1. Aé leads over to a new section, and its position lays the emphasis on 
avtéc ; comp. on Rom. vii. 25 : ipse autem ego, I, however, for my own self, 
independently and without bias from the action of others among you. See 
what follows. With this aird¢ éyé, Paul, in the feeling of his elevation 
above such action, boldly casts into the scales of his readers the weight of 
his own personality over against his calumniators. The expression has 
something in it nobly proud and defiant ; but the éudaow tie aroorodKye 
agiac’ lies not in airéc, but in éy@ TadAoe simply. While many, as Beza and 
Olshausen, have left the reference of aité¢ quite unnoticed, and others have 
arbitrarily imported what the context does not suggest, such as Erasmus, 
Bengel, and also Hofmann ;? Emmerling and Riickert assume that Paul 
wrote from x. 1 onward with his own hand, so that the avréc¢ was explained 
to the readers by the altered handwriting. Comp. Ewald, according to 
whom Paul meant only to add a short word of conclusion with his own 
hand and therewith to end the letter, but on beginning this concluding 
word, felt himself urged to enter on a detailed discussion of the matter 
itself in its personal relations. But, seeing that Paul has not added any- 
thing like r7 éuf yerpi (1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18), or at least written ypagu 
duiv instead of rapaxaa6 tuac, there is no sufficiently certain hint of this 
explanation in the words themselves, the more especially as the aird¢ éyé is 
frequently used by him elsewhere (xii. 18 ; Rom. vii. 25, ix. 8, xv. 14). 
Riickert finds a confirmation of that hypothesis in the fact that this Epistle 


1 Theodoret, comp. Chrysostom, Theo- the collection, makes the apostle lay em- 


phylact, Oecumenius, and others, including 
Billroth. 

2 Erasmus: “ille ipse vobis abunde spec- 
tatus P., qui vestrae salutis causa tantum 
malorum et passus sum et patior.’’ Bengel, 
however, hesitates between three refer- 
ences : ‘‘ipse facit antitheton vel ad Titum 
et fratres duos, quos praemisit P., vel ad 
Corinthios, quiipsi debebant officium obser- 
vare ; vel etiam ad Paulum ipsum majore 
coram usurum severitate, ut avtos, ipse, de- 
notet wltro.”’ Hofmann, still referring to 


phasis on the fact that this exhortation 
comes from himself, in contradistinction, 
namely, from what those others (chap. ix.) 
will do in his stead and by his order (comp. 
Bengel’s Ist). But the whole matter of the 
collection was completely ended at ix. 15. 
After the exclamation of thanksgiving in 
ix. 15, a mapaxadetvy of his own in this 
matter is no longer suitable; and, besides, 
the emphatic vindication of the apostolic 
authority in that case would be unealled 
for. 


CHAP. Xi, Ra 617 


does not, like the First, contain some concluding lines in his own hand. 
But most of the apostle’s letters contain nothing of the sort ; and this Epistle 
in particular, on account of its whole character and on account also of its 
bearer, stood so little in need of any authentication, if there was to be such 
a thing, from his own hand, that his enemies would have made themselves 
ridiculous by doubting the authenticity of the composition. Apart from this, 
it remains very probable that Paul himself wrote the conclusion of the Epis- 
tle, possibly from xiii. 11 onward, without mentioning the fact expressly. 
— Oia tie mpadtyrog Kai értetkeiag To Xpiotov, by means of the meekness and gen- 
tleness of Christ ; i.e. assigning a motive for compliance with my exhorta- 
tion by pointing to the fact, that Christ, whose example I have to imitate, 
is so gentle and meek (Matt. xi. 29, 30 ; Isa. xlii. 2, 8, lii. 4-7). Comp. 
Rom. xii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 10. The gentleness and meekness of Christ belong 
to the divine love manifested in Him (Rom. vili. 39 ; Tit. iii. 4 ff.), and are 
continually shown by Him in His heavenly government, in the working of 
His grace, in His intercession, etc. Estius designates rightly the ground of 
the motive assigned : ‘‘ quia cupiebat non provocari ad severitatem vindictae” 
(which would not be in harmony with Christ’s meekness and gentleness). 
On émueixeca, clementia (Acts xxiv. 4), which is often found in connection 
with zpadtyc (as Plut. Pericl. 39, Caes. 57; Philo, de Vita Mos. p. 112), 
comp. Wetstein. It is attributed even to God (2 Macc. x. 4 ; Bar. ii. 27) 
and to Wisdom (Wisd. xii. 18). Bengel gives the distinction of the two 
words : ‘‘ xpadry¢ virtus magis absoluta ; éreixexa magis refertur ad alios.” 
It is the opposite of standing on one’s full rights, Plato, Def. p. 412 B: 
Otkaiwy Kk. ovugepdvTav éAdtTwore. —6¢ KaTa Tpdcwrov piv K.t.A.] L who, to the 
Jace, am indeed humble, of a subdued, unassuming character among you, but 
in absence have courage towards you—a malicious opinion of his opponents, 
designed to counteract the influence of the apostle’s letters, which he here 
appropriates to himself piyytinéc. Comp. ver. 10. Karta -rpdécwrov, coram, 
is not a Hebraism, but see Wetstein on the passage ; Hermann, ad Soph. 
Trach. 102 ; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 612. There is no need to supply. any- 
thing after razevvéc, neither eiwi nor dv. On razevvdc, comp. Xen, Mem. iii., 
10. 5, where it is connected with dvereifepoc ; Dem. 1312, 2. 





Remarx.—Riickert is wrongly of opinion that the assertion of the opponents 
had been true, and just on that account had been so ill taken by Paul ; that 
he belonged to those in whom natural impetuosity is not united with per- 
sonal courage. Against this there is the testimony of his whole working from 
Damascus to Rome ; and outpourings like vi. 4 ff. al. do not lack internal truth. 
Comp. besides, passages like Acts xx. 22 ff., xxi. 13, xxiv. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 28 ff. 
al. That assertion of his opponents may be explained from the fact that, 
though there were not wanting disturbing phenomena even at his second arri- 
val in Corinth (ii. 1, xii. 21), it was only subsequently that the evils had be- 
_ come so magnified and multiplied as to necessitate his now writing (in our first 
Epistle) far more severely than he had spoken in Corinth. 


Ver. 2. After the previous relative clause, the rapaxa4é is in substance 
resumed by means of déouac dé, and that in such a way that dé has its adver- 


618 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


sative reference in the contents of the relative clause (Hartung, Partikell. I. 
p. 174 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 877), and the déouac now substituted for rapa- 
xa2@ betrays the increasing earnestness softened by the mention of Christ's 
gentleness and meekness. Emmerling and Riickert refer déoua: not to the 
Corinthians, but to God: ‘but I pray God that I when present may not 
be obliged to act with the confidence and boldness,” etc. So also Ewald 
and Hofmann. But how strangely Paul would have written, if he had left 
his rapaxa26 buac to stand quite abruptly at the very beginning of the new 
address ! It is all the more arbitrary not to refer déoua: also to the readers, 
and not to be willing to supply a inév with déouac fromthe previous rapaxa2o 
duac. Chrysostom and most expositors rightly give it this reference. And 
how little does what is attached to déowar dé (observe especially 7 Aoyifouat 
x.7.2.) sound like the contents of prayer !—7rd py rapov Bappjoa x.t.2.] I 
entreat the not being courageous in presence, i.e. that I may not when present 
(this tapév has the emphasis) be of brave courage with the confidence, etc. The 
meaning is : that you may not let it come to this, that I, etc. Comp. Chrysos- 
tom : uA we avayKdoyte k.7.A. On the infinitive with the article, see Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 225 [E. T. 261]. The nominative rapov with the infinitive is 
quite according to Greek usage. See Kiilfner, II. p. 344 ; Matthiae, p. 
1248. The reroifyore is not specially fiducia in Deum (Grotius, against the 
context), but generally the official confidentia, assurance. — 74 Aoyifowat ToAuT- 
ca] with which I reckon (am minded) to be bold towards certain people, etc. 
On Aoyifoua:, comp. Herod. vii. 176 ; Ken. Anab. ii. 2. 18 ; 1 Macc. iv. 35, 
vi. 19; LXX. 1 Sam. xviii. 25 ;. Jer. xxvi. 8; and on rodyjoa, xi. 21 ; 
Hom. J/. x. 232 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 178. Others, such as the Vulgate, 
Anselm, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Bengel, 
Semler, Schulz, take Aoyifoua passively (qua efferri ducor, Emmerling). In 
that case we should have had an arév with roAujoat, because in this lay the 
most essential point of the hostile criticism ; besides, the boldness of the 
expression, which lies in the correlation of AoyiGoua: Tove AoysGouévove, would 
be obliterated. — én: tivac rode Avy:Cou. | against certain, who reckon us, etc., is 
to be connected with roAujoa, since only by the erroneous course of taking 
the previous Aoyifoac aS passive would the connection with Aappioa: be re- 
quired (Luther, Beza, Estius, Emmerling, also Billroth).— reva¢ denotes 
quosdam, quos nominare nolo. See on 1 Cor. xv. 12. These are then char- 
acterized in their definite quality by rove Aoysfou. See on Luke xviii. 9, and 
Doederl. ad Oed. Col. p. 296. —6¢ kata cdpka repiratovvtac| as people who 
walk according to the standard of the flesh. oc with the participle as the object 
of a verb of believing or saying. See Kiihner, II. p. 8375. Comp. Rom. viii. 
86; 1 Cor. iv. 1; LXX. Gen. xxxi. 15, al. The repurareiv xara odpxa is not 
an expression of weakness,’ since repitatetv denotes the moral conduct. 
Hence the meaning is : as those, whose way of thinking and of acting follows, 
not the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the lusts opposed to God, which have 
their seat in the materio-psychical nature of man. Comp. on Rom. viii. 4. 


1 Beza: “non alio praesidio freti, quam inem spectes.” Comp. Bengel, Mosheim, 
quod prae nobis ferimus, qui videlicet hom- Flatt, Emmerling, also Billroth. 
ines sumus viles, si nihil aliud quam hom- 


CHAP:, X.,.35/4 619 


This general interpretation is not at variance with the context, since, in 
fact, a xara cdpxa repexateiv Would have shown such a demeanour in the 
apostle’s position as his opponents blamed him for,—bold at a distance, 
timid when near, full of the fear of men and of the desire to please men. 
In that special accusation there was therefore expressed this general one of 
the ard odpxa repirateiv ; diéBadrdov yap aitov Os troKpiT#VY, O¢ TovNpdY, O¢ 
adiatéva, Chrysostom. Thus the expression is to be explained from the im- 
mediate context, and not of the reproach made to him by the representatives 
of a false spirituality, that he acted on too free principles (Ewald). 

Ver. 3 does not introduce the refutation of the previous accusation (so 
that, with Estius and Billroth, we should have to supply a quod falswm est), 
since yap may quite naturally finds its logical reference in what was expressed 
before. Nor does it assign the reason for r@ reroul. 7 Aoyifouat ToAuqoa, 
since there is nothing whatever against the reference, which first and most 
naturally suggests itself, to the chief thought of the previous verse. Hence 
it assigns the reason of the dedua dé x.t.A2. : ‘‘I entreat, let me not become 
bold, etc. ; for the position of matters with us is quite different from what 
the opponents believe : we do not march to the field xara odpxa,” etc. Do 
not therefore run the risk of this !— év capxi yap repix.| Paul wishes to ex- 
press the thought : for it by no means stands with us so as those think, and 
hence says : Por, though we walk in the flesh, for although the existent form of 
the sinful bodily human nature is the organ, in which our conduct of life has its 
course (odpxa pév yap repixeiueba, Chrysostom), still we do not take the field 
according to the flesh, the cap£is not the standard, according to which our 
official working, which resembles a campaigning, is carried on. Observe 
that even in év capxi the notion of the odp£ is not indifferent, expressing the 
mere life of the body (comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 22) : this is forbidden by 
what goes before and follows. If taken in this way, év capxi repr. would 
contain something very insignificant, because self-evident, and would form 
no adequate contrast to card cépxa—a contrast, which only results when the 
notion of cdp£ is alike in both clauses. For the stress of this contrast lies in 
év and «xara (in the flesh, not according to the flesh) ; instead of repirartovuer, 
however, there comes in ozparevducba, because it was highly appropriate to 
the context (vv. 1, 2) to give thus a military character to the apostlc’s 
Tepitareiy in presence of his enemies (comp. vi. 7). On the idea, comp. 
LTim}; is 18. 

Ver. 4. Reason assigned for the assertion just made ov x. o. orpatevdueba, 
but not @ parenthesis (Griesbach, Lachmann), since ver. 5 is manifestly a 
further explanation of the preceding zpoc xafaip. dyvp., so that the participles 
in ver. 5 f. are to be referred to the logical subject of the verse before (jjueic). 
Comp. ix. 11, 18. — That the orpareteoba: is not cara odpxa, is shown from . 
the fact that the weapons of warfare are not capxixa ; for, if the former were 
the case, so must the latter also. By the weapons (comp. vi. 7 ; Rom. vi. 
13, xiii. 12) are to be understood the means, which the apostolic activity 
makes use of in the strife with the hostile powers. — capxixa] which belong 
to the life-sphere of the cdp£, so that the cap£, the sinfully inclined human 
nature, is their principiwm essendi, and they do not proceed from the Holy 


620 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ~ 


Spirit,’ as e.g. codia capxixh, 1. 12, the vote tHe capxdc, Cor. ii. 18, the whole 
épya the capk., Gal. v. 19. Now, since fleshly weapons as such are weak 
(Matt. xxvi. 41; Rom. vi. 19), and not in keeping with the aims of the 
apostolic work, the weapons opposed to them are not designated according | 
to their nature (for it is self-evident that they are érAa rvevpatixa), but at 
once according to their specific potency (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 4), as duvata To beo. 
By this the passage only gains in pith, since by virtue of the contrast so ex- 
pressed in capxixd the quality of weakness, and in duvara rO Oe the pneu- 
matic nature, are understood ev adjuncto. Hence the inference frequently 
drawn from duvara 76 626, that capxixdg here must mean weak, is too hasty. — 
duvata TO Oe] mighty for God, i.e. passing with God as mighty, which de- 
notes the true reality of the being mighty, without, however, being a He- 
braistic periphrasis for the superlative (Vorstius, Glass, Emmerling, Vater, 
Flatt). See on dorteiocg 76 Oe, Acts vii. 20; Bernhardy, p. 83 f. Others, 
not following this current genuinely Greek usage (for the corresponding 
Hebrew usage, see Gesenius, Thesaur. I. p. 98), have explained it as : 
through God,’ or for God, z.e. so that they are to God a means of showing His 
power (Billroth ; comp. Chrysostom and Hofmann). But the former would 
be superfluous, since it is self-evident in the case of spiritual weapons, and 
the latter would import something into the words, especially as not God, 
but Christ (ver. 5), is conceived as the general ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3. For 
the mighty ravoriia of the Christian, which, along with the special apostolic 
gifts, is also that of the apostles, see Eph. vi. 14 ff. — rpdc xafaipeow byvpu- 
udtwr| that, for which the weapons are mighty : to the pulling down of strong- — 
holds (Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 3; very frequent in the books of the Maccabees ; 
comp. dxupi¢ ripyoc, TéTtoc, Syupa mdALc, dpovpd, and the like). The rigoc 
‘EAAnvixéc and the icyic tav cogicudtar kat Tov dvaAoytouav (Chrysostom) are 
included in the phrase. It does not, however, mean these alone, nor the 
‘‘old walls of the Jewish legal system” (Kl6pper), but generally everything, 
which may be included as belonging to the category of humanly strong and 
mighty means of resistance to the gospel. Examples of this jigurative use 
may be seen in Wetstein and Kypke, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 317. 
The pulling down depicts the making quite powerless and reducing to 
nought—the xarapyeiv, 1 Cor. i. 28, and xataccybverv, 1 Cor. i. 27. 

Ver. 5. How the rpoc¢ xafaip. oyvpou. is executed by the jueic, (the logical 
subject in ver. 4): inasmuch as we pull down thoughts (Rom. ii. 15), ¢.e. bring 
to nothing hostile deliberations, resolutions, plans, calculations, and the 
like, raising themselves like fortresses against Christ. More precise defini- 
tions (Grotius and many others: ‘‘ratiocinationes philosophorum,” comp. 
Ewald ; ‘‘ subtleties,” Hofmann : ‘‘ thoughts of their own,” behind which 
men screen themselves from the urgent knowledge of God) are not warrant- 
ed by the context, nor yet by the contrast of yvéore r. @., since this is meant 
objectively (in opposition to de Wette, who understands thoughts of self-con- 


1 Chrysostom reckons up such weapons: 2 Beza, Grotius, Cornelius 4& Lapide, 
mAoutos, d0€a, duvacteta, evyAwttia, Sevvorys, Estius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Bengel, and 
Teptopoxat, KoAaxeiat, Umoxpioets, Ta GAAa Others; Erasmus has aflatu Dei. 

TG TOVTOLS EOLKOTA, 


CHAP. X., 6. 621 


ceited wisdom). Also against Olshausen's opinion, that Paul is censuring 
specially the pretended wisdom of the Christ-party, it is to be observed that 
he is speaking, not simply of the working against Corinthian opponents, 
but against enemies in general. 'The figurative expression of destruction by 
war, kafaipovvrec, Was very naturally suggested by the image which had just 
gone before, and which is immediately afterwards taken up again by ioua 
(érémeve TH TpoTH, iva TAEiova Toon THY Eudaccv, Chrysostom); and the subse- 
quent éapéu. emphatically corresponds to it. — kat rav ivwua x.t.4.] and 
every exalted thing (rampart, castle, tower, and the like, comp. Aq. Ps. xviii. 
84, and see in general, Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 427), which is lifted up against 
the (evangelical) knowledge of God (the knowledge of God kar’ é£oxfv), that 
this may not become diffused and prevailing. (3°) The real meaning of the 
figurative iyaua is equivalent to that of oyipwoua, ver. 4; the relation to 
Aoytopobc is, however, correctly defined by Bengel : ‘‘ cogitationes species, 
altitudo genus.” — The enemy, whois thus vanquished by the destruction of 
his high places, is ray vénua, t.e. not all reason (Luther ; comp. Vulgate : 
‘‘omnem intellectum”), as if ravra vory were used, but (comp. on iii. 14, 
iv. 4) every creation of thought, every product of the human thinking faculty. 
The Aoyiouoi before named belong to this, but Paul here goes on to the 
whole general category of that, which as product of the voic takes the field 
against Christianity. Ad? this is by Paul and his companions brought 
into captivity, and thereby into subordination to Christ, after the bulwarks 
are destroyed, etc. Thus the holy war comes to the goal of complete 
victory. — ic tiv braxopy tov X.] so that this ray vdyua, which previously 
was hostile to Christ, now becomes obedient and subject to Christ. By 
this is expressed the conversion to Christ, which is attained through the 
apostolic working, consequently a leading captive ard dovieidc cic éAevfepiar, 
and Oavdrov rpoc Cuyv, é& arodeiag rpd¢ cwrnpiav, Chrysostom. The condition 
imakoy Tov Xptorov is conceived of as a local sphere, into which the enemy is 
led captive. Comp. Luke xxi. 24; Tob. i. 10 ; 1 Kings viii. 46 ; 3 Esdr. 
vi. 16; Judithv.18. Apart from this conception, Paul would have written 
Th brakoh Tov Xp‘orov, or simply 76 XpiorM. Comp. Rom. vii. 23. Kypke, 
Zachariae, Flatt, Emmerling, Bretschneider, connect ei¢ 7. izax. tr. X. with 
av vénud, and take eic as contra. But in that case Paul would have written 
very unintelligibly, and by the change of the preposition (previously «ard) 
would have simply led the reader astray ; besides, the aiyuadtwrifovrec, with- 
out eig t. ivax. t. X., would remain open and incomplete ; finally, ver. 6 
shows that he conceived the iraxoy Xpiorov as the goal of the working, conse- 
quently as belonging to aiyynad%. Comp. also Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. 

Ver. 6. The reverse side of the aiyyatwrifovres «.7.A. just expressed. AI- 
though, namely, the aiyuar. ray vonua eic t. bax. Tov Xprorov is the result of 
the apostolic warfare on the whole and in general; yet there remain excep- 
tions—persons, who do not surrender themselves captive to Christ’s domin- 
ion ; there remains rapaxof# in contradistinction to the imaxof of others. 
Hence it is a part also of the complete work of victory to punish every rapa- 
cof. And this, says Paul, we are in readiness to execute, so soon as, etc. 
Bengel wel! says: ‘‘ Zelus jam adest ; prometur, cum tempus erit.” Paul 


622 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


does not speak of the action of war-captives at variance with the duty of 
obedience, to which they are taken bound (Hofmann). For this the threat, 
which would amount, in fact, to the avenging of every sin, would be too 
strong, and the fotlowing érav «.7.4. would not besuitable. The rapaxovovrec 

iust still be enemies who, after the victory, do not submit to the victor. — 
év éroium Eyovtec] in promptu habentes, also in Polyb. i. 34. 2, and Philo, 
Leg. ad Caj. p. 1011, 1029. See, in general, Wetstein. —érav rAnpol tyav 
4 braxoy| With this he turns to apply what was previously said of a general 
tenor (éxdvx. taoav rapax.) specially to the circumstances of the Corinthians, 
so that the conduct of the Judaistic teachers, who had intruded intc Corinth 
and directed their doings against Paul, appears especially to be included in 
maoa Twapaxog ; and the Corinthian church, a part of which had pbeen led 
astray by those persons, is represented as not yet completely obedient, but 
as in the course of developing this complete obedience. When this develop- 
ment shall be completed (which till then makes a claim on my patience, ‘‘ ne 
laedantur imbecilliores,” Bengel), that éxdixyore of every disobedience shall— 
even as respects the situation of things at Corinth—ensue.’ Thus the 
apostle separates the interest of the church from that of the intruding 
seducers, and presents his relation to the church as one of forbearance and 
confidence, while his relation to his opponents is one of vengeance delaying 
its execution only for the sake of the church, which has not yet ettained to 
full obedience—a wise manipulation of the Divide et impera !— How he 
means to execute the éxdcxety (Rom. xii. 19), he does not say ; he might do 
so by ordaining excommunication, by giving them over to Satan (1 Cor. 
v. 5), or by other exercise of his miraculous apostolic power. —ituér] is 
placed first with emphasis, to distinguish the church from those whose rapa- 
xo was to be punished. Hofmann, without ground, denies this emphasis, 
because iuav does not stand before zAnpw67. The emphasis certainly falls, 
in the jirst instance, on rAnp., and next not on 7 trex., but on ipudv. 

Ver. 7. Paul feels that the éfovcia, just described in vv. 3-6, is not con- 
ceded to him by his opponents and those misled by them in the church ; 
they judge that he is evidently no right servant of Christ, and that he must 
come to shame with his boasting (comp. ver. 8). He at once breaks into 
the midst of this course of thought on the part of his opponents with the 
disapproving question : Do you look on that which lies before the eyes ? do you 
judge according to the appearance ?, by which he means this, that they pro- 
fess to have seen him weak and cowardly, when he was in Corinth person- 
ally (comp. ver. 1). This does not involve any admission of the charge in 
ver. 1, but, on the contrary, discloses the error, in accordance with which 
the charge was based on the apostle’s outward appearance, which did not 
make a display of his boldness. The answer to the question is : [f any one 
is confident that he belongs to Christ, let him judge this again of himself, that 


} Lachmann, by a full stop, separates 6rav to what lies before your eyes.” A precept 
mAnp. UM. » Umax. Wholly from what goes strangely conditioned! And why should 
before, and connects it with what follows, we give up the common punctuation, which 
so that the meaning results: ‘‘When your _ yields a delicate touch quite characteristic 
obedience shall have become complete, see of Paul? 


CUA PR aX, yt 623 
just as he belongs to Christ, so do we. The opposing teachers had certainly 
boasted : How utterly different people are we from this Paul, who is bold 
only at a distance, and makes a boast of belonging as an apostle to Christ ! 
We are right servants of Christ !— 7rd kara rpécwrov BAérere| is taken inter- 
rogatively by Theodoret ; * along with which, however, many import into xara 
ixpdowrov elements at variance with the text (see vv. 1 and 10), such as 
intercourse with Jesus when on earth and other matters. It is taken as not 
interrogative (Lachmann and Tischendorf), but also with BAéere as indica- 
tive, and the sentence, consequently, as a judgment of censure, by Chrysos- 
tom, Gennadius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schulz, Flatt. Calvin 
says : ‘* Magni facitis alios, qui magnis ampullis turgent ; me, quia ostenta- 
tione et jactantia careo, despicitis ;” while Flatt, following Storr, in spite 
of vv. 1 and 10, refers xatad zpécwrov to the kinship of James with Christ, on 
which the Christine party had relied. In any case, however, it is more live- 
ly and forcible, and therefore more suitable, to take it as interrogative. 
Others, again, take BAérere as an tmperative :* observe withal what lies so clearly 
before the eyes! In this view we should not have to explain it with Ewald : 
‘‘ regard personal matters ;” so that Paul begins to point to the personal ele- 
ment which is now to be taken into consideration ; but with Hofmann : 
the readers only needed to have their eyes open to what lay before them, in 
order to judge rightly. But against this it may be urged that xara rpdcwrov 
could not but most naturally explain itself from ver. 1, and that the meaning 
itself would have something tame and more calmly argumentative, than 
would be suited to the lively emotion of the passage. Besides, it is Paul’s 
custom elsewhere to put érere first, when he summons to an intuemini. 
See 1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18 ; Phil. ill. 2.—eituce wéroifev éavtd Xpiorov eivac| In 
this way is designated the confidence which his opponents (not a single 
peculiar false teacher, as Michaelis thinks) arrogantly cherished for them- 
selves, but denied to Paul, that they were genuine Christ-people, genuine 
servants of Christ. The addition of dovAoe to Xpiorod in D* E* F G, it. 
Ambrosiaster, is a correct gloss (comp. xi..23). For it is not the confiteor of 
the Christine party (1 Cor. i. 12) that is meant here,* but the assertion—to the 
exaltation of themselves and the exclusion of Paul—of a true apostolic con- 
nection (through calling, gifts, etc.) with Christ * on the part of Judaistic 
pseudo-apostles (xi. 5, xiii. 22, 23). Observe that the teachers here meant 
were not a party of the church, like the adherents of Christ designated in 1 
Cor. i. 12. The very otro cai yueic, compared with ver. 8,—to say nothing 


1 Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Cajetanus, 
Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Hammond, 
Bengel, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, Emmer- 
ling, Rabiger, Osiander, Klopper, and 
others. 

2 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Corne- 
lius & Lapide, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, 
de Wette, Bisping, Hofmann. 

3 Mosheim, Stolz, Flatt, comp. also Ols- 
hausen, Dihne, de Wette, Schenkel, Bey- 
schlag, Hilgenfeld, Kl6pper, and others; 
see against this, Neander, I. p. 393 ff., and 


also Hofmann. 

4 Not with His disciples, and in particular 
with Peter, as Baur insinuates. See his 
Paulus, I. p. 306, ed. 2. It wasin his view the 
original apostles as immediate disciples of 
the Lord (see also Holsten, 2. Huang. des 
Paul. u. Petr. p. 24 ff.), from whose position 
the anti-Pauline party in Corinth had bor- 
rowed their watchword Xpuorod etvar. And 
in these his opponents Paul was at the 
same time combating the original apostles. 


624 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of the fact that there is no hint of any such special reference,—precludes 
our explaining it of the continued immediate connection with Christ through 
visions and the like, of which the heads of the Christine party had probably 
boasted (de Wette, Diihne, Goldhorn, and others, following Schenkel). — 
radwv| not : on the contrary, or on the other hand, which it never means in the 
N. T. (see on Matt. iv. 7, and Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 167), but, again, denuo. 
It refers to ég’ éavrod, which is correlative to the previous éavr@.. He is con- 
fident to himself ; let him then consider once more for himself, In this view 
there was no need of the shift to which Fritzsche has recourse, that rezo- 
févac and Aoyifecba ‘‘communem continent mente volvendi notionem,.”” The 
verbs might be quite heterogeneous in point of the notion conveyed, since 
radu is logically defined by the relation of éavré and éavrov. —The Recepta 
aq’ éavrov, instead of which, however, é¢’ éavrod is to be read * would mean 
proprio motu, Luke xii. 57, xxi. 80, 2 Cor. ili. 5, @.e. without any need for 
one first to say it tohim. The text gives no warrant for zronical interpretation 
(from his own high estimate, Riickert). — obrw kat jueic] is a litotes from the 
apostle’s point of view. Ov yap BobdAerar éx mpooiuiwv opodpd¢ yivecBat aAAd Kara 
pxpov ab&etat Kat kopvdovtat, Chrysostom. 

Ver. 8. Proof of the oitw cai jueic from his apostolic authority, which was 
yet greater than he had already represented it. —7ré yap] etenim, as in Rom. 
i, 26, vii. 7. See on these passages, and Hermann, ad Soph. Trach. 1015 ; 
regarding the independent usage frequent in the later Attic, see Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 750 f. —éav] is not used concessively (Riickert ; not even 1 Cor. 
iv. 15, xiii. 1 ff.), but puts a case as a conception of the speaker, in which 
the realization remains left to experience : for, im case that I shall have boast- 
ed myself yet something more (than has been already done by me in vv. 3-6) 
of the authority, etc., I shall not be put to shame, it will be apparent that I have 
not been practising empty boasting of which I should have to be ashamed. 
reploodt. TL iS accusative of object, like r/, vil. 11. See on ix. 2. The ref- 
erence of the comparative to what was said-in ver. 7 (Osiander, Hofmann, 
following older commentators) has against it the fact that Paul, in ver. 7, 
has not spoken of an éfovcia ; and to take epi r. éFovo. ju. as an element, 
added only by way of supplement, would be all the more arbitrary, since, 
in fact, what follows is attached to it significantly. It is taken too gener- 
ally by Grotius and others: plus quam alit possent,” or as: ‘* somewhat 
more amply” (Ewald ; comp. Billroth and Olshausen). On 7. éfovoiag x.7.A., 
comp. xili. 10. — 7¢ Moxev 6 kbproc eic olxodouny x.T.2.| significant more precise 
definition of the previous 7uér, with a double side-glance at the false apos- 
tles, whose power neither was from Christ nor redounded to edification 
(perfection of the Christian life), but rather to the destruction of the church. 
(x*) Paul conceives of the church as a temple of God, which the apostolic 


1 The reading éb’ éavrov (Lachm. ed min.), tion apud se in the Vulg. and It. also rests 
supported by BL®& 21, is not meaningless on this reading, which might easily enough 
(Ewald), but isto be taken: with himself, in be supplanted by the better known 4¢’ 
quietness for himself—a classic usage since éavtov, and hence deserves to be preferred. 
Homer (Z/, vii. 195, xix. 255; see Faesi on There lies in this é¢’ éavtod (secum solo re- 
these passages) of very frequent occur- putet) a reproof putting more delicately 
rence ; see Kiihner, II. p. 296. The transla- to shame than in aq’ éavtod~. 


CHAPIN, ‘0. 625 


teachers are building (1 Cor. iii. 16; comp. on Rom. xiv. 19); and he is 
conscious that he will, in the event of his making a still greater boast of 
that, not be put to shame, but see himself justified by the result of his 
work. Observe the interchange of plural (éfovc. ju.) and singular. Ols- 
hausen, in an arbitrary and involved way, connects el¢ oixod. with cavyfjow- 
uat, holding that there is an anticipation of the thought, so that, according 
to the meaning, it ought to have run : ov« aicyvvOfooua, éyéveto yap ele K.T.A. 
— ovk aicxvv9.| when ? in every case of the future generally. There is no in- 
dication in the text of a limitation to the last day (Ewald). Even on his 
arrival at. Corinth he expected that he should experience no cause for 
shame. 

Ver. 9 is taken by Chrysostom’ as the protasis of ver. 11, so that ver. 10 
becomes a parenthesis. But by Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Grotius, 
Bengel, and others, also Billroth and Schrader, it is attached to ver. 8, in 
which case, however, some (Beza, Bengel, comp. Billroth) supply before 
iva a ‘* quod ego idcirco dico,” others (Grotius, comp. Erasmus): ‘‘ on addam 
plura ea de re.” ‘The latter is pure invention ; and from the supplement of 
Beza there would not at all logically result what is said in ver. 9. No; 
let iva uy O6Eo k.7.2. be joined zmmediately, without assuming any interven- 
ing thought, to ov« aicyuvOgooua : I shall not be put to shame (now comes the 
definition, in.a negative form, of the divine aim with reference to the charge 
in question) im order that I may not appear, etc., that the matter may not 
remain on the footing of the mere word, but it may be apparent in point of 
fact that I am something quite other than the man who wishes to frighten 
you by his letters. If in this way the passage proceeds simply and correctly 
without logical difficulty, the less simple connection of Chrysostom e¢ al. 
(see above) is superfluous, and is, moreover, not to be accepted, because the 
new part of the passage would begin, in a very palpably abrupt way, with 
iva Without any connecting particle,* and because what Paul says in ver. 11 
could not destroy the appearance indicated in ver. 9, to which belonged 
matter of fact. — ac av éxdoBetv tuac| The Vulgate rightly hag: ‘‘tanquam 
terrere vos,” and Beza : ‘‘ceu perterrefacere vos.” The oc dv modestly takes 
away from the harsh and strong éxdofeiv the offensiveness, which in the 
feeling of the apostle it would have had, if taken by itself and in its full 
sense. Itis not modal (‘‘in any way,” Hofmann), but comparative, corre- 
sponding quite to our modifying as [German wie]: that I may not appear 
to put you as in dread. In later Greek ac dy certainly has the meaning tan- 
quam, quasi, dv having lost its specific reference. See Hermann, de part. 
av, 4. 3, p. 184; Bornemann, in d. Sdchs. Stud. 1846, p. 61 ; Buttmann, 
neut. Gram. p. 189 [E. T. 219]. To resolve it into dc dv éxdoBoipe bua (Ols- 
hausen) is arbitrary, as if it were oratio directa. The classical é¢ adv with 
optative and subjunctive (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 767), as in 1 Thess. ii. 7, is 
not to be brought into comparison here, — did rév émior.] namely, which I 


‘ i Calvin, Schulz, Morus, Zachariae, Em- crept in after tva a dé, which we still find in 
merling. Vater, Riickert, Olshausen, de Syr. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Pel. Ambro- 

Wette, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. siast. and several cursives. 

- 2 Hence also at a very early time there 


626 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

write to you (article); he had already written two. The plural does not 
justify the hypothesis of a third letter already written (Bleek). — The com- 
pound éxgoBeiv (comp. éx@oBoc, Mark ix. 6 ; Heb. xii. 21) is stronger than 
the simple form, Plato, Gorg. p. 483 C ; Hp. 3, p. 318 B; Thue. iii. 42. 4; 
Polyb. xiv. 10. 3; Wisd. xvii. 9, 19 ; 1 Macc. xiv. 17. 

Ver. 10. For his letters, it is said, are weighty and strong ; his bodily pres- 
ence, however, is powerless (when present in body, he acts without power 
and energy) and his speech despised, his oral teaching, exhortation, etc., find 
no respect, are held of little account. Comp. ver. 1. For the apostle’s 
own commentary on the second part of this assertion of his opponents, see 
1 Cor. ii. 3, 4. Quite at variance with the context, some have found here 
also bodily weakness (Witsius in Wolf ; recently, in particular, Holsten, zum 
Hy. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85), and a weak utterance (Er. Schmid). Besides, 
the tradition is very uncertain and late, which pronounces Paul to have 
been pxpdv Kai ovveotaAuévov Td Tov camatoc péyeOog (Niceph. Call. ii. 37). 
Comp. on Acts xiv. 12.—The opposite of icyvpai, powerful, is dobevic. — On 
Bapeia, comp. Wetstein. The gravitas is imposing and instils respect ; 
hence the opposite éfovfevyu. — dyor] tt 1s said, impersonal, as often with the 
Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading gaciv (Lachmann, following 
B, Vulg.) is a rash correction. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph. p. 189 ; 
Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 119 [E. T. 136]. (x) 

Ver. 11. After ver. 10 a full stop is to be put (see on ver. 9), so that now, 
without any connecting particle, but with the more striking force, there 
follows what is suggested for the consideration of the person judging in 
such wise. — toovro: kal mapdvtec TO tpyw] se. éovév. Such a double part we 
do not play. 

Ver. 12.’ Reason assigned for this assurance (olo/ éoyev . 
we are not like our boastful opponents, but, etc. If we were such peopleas 
they are, word and work might doubtless not harmonize in our case. —ov 
yap ToApopev K.T.A.| for we do not venture to number ourselves among, or compare 
ourselves, with certain people among those who commend themselves ; but they,* 
measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are 
not rational ; we, on the other hand, will not make our boast beyond measure, but, 
etc., ver. 18. In ov roAuouev is implied an irony which shows the want of 
humility in those people. Bengel aptly says : ‘‘ sepem inter se et illos ponit.” 
—éyxpiva:] annumerare, to place in one category ; inserere, as the Vulgate 
rightly has it (Hor. Od. i. 1. 35 ; construed with éic¢, werd, éxé with genitive, 
and with the simple dative of the persons joined (Apoll. Rhod. i. 48. 227). 
See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 264. — cvyxpivac] might mean the same (Morus, 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Reiche, and several, following the Peshitto), but is defined 
by cvykpivovrec in the contrasting clause as having the meaning comparare 


1+ TO épyw) : for 


1This passage is most thoroughly dis- 
cussed by Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 33 ff. 
(whom Billroth has entirely followed), 
and by Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 375 
ff. Theodoret remarks: acagd@s amav 70 
xopynwa TtodtTo yéypadev, and for this he ad- 


vances aS a reason: évapyas €Aéyfat Tovs 


aitious ov BovAdmevos. 

2 This emphasized they (avrot, they on their 
part) is fully justified in contrast to the 
following mets ; hence it is not, with Osi- 
ander, to be taken in the sense of solz, in its 
limitation to themselves. 


CHAP: X., 12, 627 


(Vulgate), which it very often has in later Greek, as also in Wisd. vii. 29, 
xv. 18, equivalent to rapaBdArew in Polyb. i. 2. 1, xii. 12. 1.7 See, in gen- 
eral, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 278. Comp. Loesner, Obss. p. 2738. Observe, 
moreover, the paronomasia of the two verbs, something like inferre aut con- 
Jerre, the German zurechnen oder gleichrechnen ; Ewald : eingleichen oder 
vergleichen [reckon to or reckon like]. —zior] as in ver. 2, not : even the least 
of them (Hofmann). —rév éavr. ovvior.| This is the class of men, to which 
the riwvéc belong. — aAAa] introduces the opposite in such a way that the pro- 
cedure of the two parties is placed antithetically in juxtaposition: ‘* We do not 
venture to reckon ourselves to cr compare ourselves with them, but they 
proceed thus, we, on the other hand, thus.” We do not venture, etc., but 
between them and us there subsists the contrast, which does away with that 
éyxpivat } ovyKpiva. K.7.A., that they, etc., whereas we, etc. — airoi down to ob 
ovviovoww applies to the hostile twéc, and on this point one half of the expositors 
are agreed. But ovoicv, which is therefore not to be accented ovriovew 
(comp. on Rom. iii. 11), is not a participle (Chrysostom), so that it would be 
definition of quality to éavroic, which would quite unnecessarily make an 
anacoluthon, but it is the third person plural (Matt. xiii. 13) for the Attic 
suviaowv, Which is read by Lachmann, following B x **—so that év éavroi¢ 
éavtove weTpowvTec K. ovyKp. éavt. éavtoic is the point, in which the opponents 
show their irrationality (inasmuch as they measure themselves by themselves. . . 
they are irrational), and not the object of ot cvviciaww (they do not know that 
they measure themselves by themselves), as Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Estius, 
Grotius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, and several have held. To this last view, in- 
deed, there is no grammatical objection (Valckenaer, ad Herod. III. 1, and 
on the distinction from the infinitive construction, Kiihner, II. p. 357), but 
it would yield an inappropriate meaning ; for the contrast jweic dé «.7.2. Shows 
that Paul did not mean to bring into Prsniinahes the blindness of his oppo- 
nents towards their foolish conduct, but the folly of this procedure itsclf, 
whereas he proceeds quite otherwise. When those people measure them- 
selves by themselves, judge themselves by their own personality, and com- 
pare themselves with this instead of with persons working more and better,’ 
they are in this presumption of theirs (comp. Chrysostom 1) zrrational, in- 
eptiunt, ov ovviicr. This, however, is not to be defined more precisely by 
arbitrary additions, such as: they do not know how ridiculous they make 
themselves (Chrysostom 2, Theophylact), or how arrogant they are (Occume- 
nius), or what they are talking about (Augustine). Comp. rather Rom. iii. 11 ; 


2 The objects compared may be of similar 347E: avrot 8 éavtots avveror &’ Eavtwv. It 


or dissimilar nature. On this point the word 
does not determine anything. 

2 Such an one thinks: what a great man 
I am, for how much I know and can do! 
how I even excel myself, etc. ! His own ego 
is thus object and canon of the measuring 
and judging. Calvin aptly illustrates this 
by the example of the ignorant and yet so 
conceited monks. The juxtaposition of 
avtoi év éavTois écavtovs palliates the conceit of 
the selfish nature. Comp. Plato, Protag. p. 


is well paraphrased by Reiche, p. 3880: 
‘‘sibi ipsis 6 vana sua de se opinione virtu- 
tum meritorumque modulum constituentes 
atque se sibi solis comparantes, non potior- 
ibus meliusque meritis, quod si fecerint, 
illico quam sint nihil ipsi cognoscerent.”’ 
Hofmann, again, deals in subtleties, refer- 
ring év éavrots not only to the first, but also 
to the second participle, and (see against 
this, below) connecting the concluding 
éavtots With the following verb. 


628 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Matt. xiii. 13, a7. Hofmann prefers the reading of 8* 93 : ovvicacw (comp. 
on this Attic form, Acts xxvi. 4, and see Buttmann, Ausf. Sprachl. p. 548 
ff.), and attaches éavroic to it : they are not conscious of this, that they only 
measure themselves and compare themselves, i.e. that only within their own selves 
they form their judgment respecting themselves, how far they are capable of appre- 
hending, and to whom they areentitled to rank themselves equal. But the reading 
cuvicacly can only be regarded as a copyist’s error, through which, instead of 
ovviaotv (Lachmann), there crept in the word ovricacy well known from the 
Attic writers (e.g. Soph. #7. 93 ; Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1. 9), and this in turn was at 
once amended by the corrector A. And inno case can éavroi¢ be separated from 
ovyKkpivoytec, Since ovyxpivecy in itself is an incomplete notion, which necessarily 
requires a specification of that with which comparison is made. Hofmann’s 
view is at once uneritical and illogical, apart from the fact that it very much 
disturbs the purposely chosen symmetry of the two participial definitions ; 
hence it is also formally unsuitable.— The second half of the expositors 
(Chrysostom hesitates between the two views) refer airol . . . ovrviovaw to 
Paul, and consider ovvwiow (to be written cvvioveww) as a participle, so that the 
measuring self by self, etc. appears to be the right kind of judgment.' 
Comp. Horace, Hp. i. 7. 98: ‘‘ Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum 
est.” In this case etther (a) ob ovviiow is considered as in contrast with 
éavroic : with ourselves, not with wise people, by which the conceited opponents 
would be ironically meant (Bos, Homberg, Schrader). Or (6) aAza.. . 
éavtove éavroic is taken as parenthesis, and od ovrwic: as One conception in 
apposition to tot tay éavt. ovvior. (Schulz). Or (€) ov ovviovar is taken as 
apposition to the preceding éavroic : ‘‘ neque existimo ex me, homine, ut istis 
placet, insipido,’”” Emmerling, whom Olshausen follows. All these views take 
the participles for the finite tenses (or rather as anacoluthic) ; but against 
them all the following jyeic dé is decisive, which makes it logically neces- 
sary to refer aitoi to the opponents ; for it cannot, as Emmerling and Ols- 
hausen think, form a logical contrast to the charge whichis alleged to be im- 
plied in od cvviotcv, since jueic Jé would require to be put in antithesis to the 
accusers, and not to the accusation (which, besides, would only be expressed 
quite cursorily and indirectly by od cvvwicv). Further, there may be urged 
against (a), that it would require ov roic cvviotow with the article ; against 
(b), that this interpretation is involved ; against (c), not so much the want 
of the article—for ov cvvoicw need not be in apposition, but might also be 
an accompanying definition of éavroic—as the fact that there is no hint in the 
context of any ironical adducing of such a charge, and hence it is not to be 
compared with xi. 1, 16, 19, xii. 11. (uL°) 


Remark 1.—Against our explanation,? it has been objected (see especially 
Fritzsche and Billroth) that aad avrot «.7.A. cannot apply to the opponents, 


1 According to Emmerling, merp. éavr. év 
éavt. applies to abstinence from promises 
which transcend their powers, and the 
ovyKpuv. éavt. éavtors to the *‘ judicium ferre 
de se ad normam virium suarum, factorum 
et meritorum.”’ According to Olshausen, év 


éavTois éavTovs petpovvtes is intended to 
mean: we measure ourselves by what the 
Lord has imposed on us / 

2 Which is found in substance also in 
Augustine, Chrysostom 1, Theodoret, Theo- 
phylact, Luther, Calvin,.Hammond, Wet- 


CHAP. 3.4013. 629 
because manifestly different modes of dealing, and not different persons, would 
be opposed to each other, in which case Paul could not but have written : 7yuet¢ 
yap ob. . . aAda adrol «,.t.A. But by this very contrast of persons first intro- 
duced by dAAd (dAAG avtol . . . ieic dé) the opposite of the mode of action pre- 
viously negatived is exhibited in a truly concrete and vivid way, and by no 
means illogically, seeing that in fact by the previous éavrove tot the contrast of 
persons introduced with adjAd was very naturally suggested. On the other 
hand, it would not have been logical, if Paul had written jueic yap ov roAuc- 
plev . . . dAdAd adrot k.T.A., Since then doubtless the persons, but not that which is 
asserted of the persons, would stand in logical contrast with one another ; for 
what is asserted would need to be substantially in both clauses one and the same 
thing, which would be denied of the jeic, and affirmed of the airoi. It has 
been objected to our explanation of ov ovvioicw that it is against the context ; 
but it is, in point of fact, to be observed, that on the one hand it gives a very 
delicate explanation concerning the ironical ov roAyoyverv, and that on the other 
hand the following jeic dé k.7.2. with logical accuracy opposes to the previous 
GAAd avrol «.7.2. the thought : we, however, abide by the measure which God has 
imparted to us, so that in kata To pétpov Tov Kavévoc, ob Euép. HU. 6 Bede wéTpov there 
lies the contrast to the irrational procedure of the opponents measuring them- 
selves by themselves, He who measures himself by himself, seeing that in fact 
he lacks an objective standard, falls with his boasting ei¢ ra duerpa, like 
those opponents ; but not he, who knows himself determined by a limit set by 
God. Finally, the objection, that by our interpretation ov ovvioiow gets a 
thought imported into it which its literal tenor does not actually present 
(Hofmann), is quite groundless, since ov, by a quite common usage, turns the 
ovviovety into its opposite, consequently ov ovv. expresses the dovvecia, the 
irrationality and folly of those men in their procedure. 

Reman 2.—By leaving out od cvvioiow: jueic dé, but retaining xavynoducha, 
ver. 13 (see the critical remarks), the meaning results: ‘‘ sed me ex meo modulo 
metiens mihique me conferens, non praeter modum, sed ad modum ita mihi praefiniti 
spatii, ut ad vos quoque pervenirem, gloriabor’’ (Fritzsche).! But if ckavynodueba 
also is left out, as Fritzsche and Billroth approve, Paul in ver. 15 turns back to 
ovK el¢ TA Gwetpa in ver. 13, and then adds the still necessary verb anacoluthi- 
cally in the participle: ‘‘sed me ipse mihi conferens, non praeter modum.. . 
ver. 15, non praeter modum inquam me efferens’’ (Fritzsche). The suitableness of 
the meaning and of the antithetic character in the several parts, as well as the 
unexceptionable warrant of the anacoluthon, have been aptly shown by 
Fritzsche, pp. 41, 43 f. But the rejected words cannot thereby be deprived of 
their critical title to exist. 


Ver. 13. Ec 7a duetpa] so that we with our xavyaobha go beyond measure, go 
into limitless extravagance. This is what is done by the man who measures 


stein, Zachariae, and others, including 
Rickert, Reiche, Neander, Osiander, Kling, 
partly also in Hofmann. 

1Comp. Ewald : ‘‘dut modestly and cau- 
tiously measuring ourselves by ourselves and 
our abilities, and comparing ourselves with 
ourselves and our labours already achieved 
and clear before the world and before God, 


we will not (like those intruders) boast with- 
out measure, but at most will boast accord- 
ing to the measure of the standard which God 
imparted to us as measure, and which ac- 
cordingly among other things authorized 
and strengthened us, that we attained even 
unto you and founded you.” 


630 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

himself by himself, because in that case no check external to himself is put 
on his imagination and self-exaltation. Such a man certainly has an 
object of the xavyaoba, and is not simply aiming at the having one (Hofmann), 
which would yield an absurd idea ; but he has no bounds in the manner and 
degree of his cavyaoa ; he is wanting in werpidtyc. Regarding the use of 
ei¢ With an adjective of degree and the article, see Viger. ed. Herm. p. 596 ; 
Matthiae, p. 1349. On the expression itself, comp. Homer, J7, ii. 212, 
where Thersites is called auetpoerfc. — xavynodueba] The future asserts that 
this case will not occur, Comp. Rom. x. 14, al.; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 
369. — aAad kata Td uéTpov Tov Kavévoc, Ov K.T.A.] SC. Kavynodusba : but according to 
the measure of the boundary-line, which God (not our own choice) has assigned 
tous as measure, to reach even unto you, i.e. but our boasting will restrict and 
measure itself according to the limit which God has drawn for us, and by 
which He has measured off the sphere of our activity, in order that we 
should reach even to you with our working. By this Paul is manifestly 
aiming at the vaingloriousness of the false apostles, who decked themselves 
with extraneous feathers, inasmuch as they intruded into the provinces of 
others, into spheres which had not been assigned to them by God as the 
measure of their activity : as, indeed, in particular they had come also to 
Corinth, which lay within the boundary-line of Paul’s apostolic action, and 
were now boasting as if the church-life in Corinth were chiefly their work. 
For, although they could not give themselves out to be the fownders of the 
church (Baur, Jib. Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 101), they could still put forward 
as their merit the rapid growth of the church and many points of detail, and 
thereby presume to put the apostle in the shade. Olshausen thinks that the 
false apostles had appropriated to themselves Corinth as their province, 
because they had already been at work there before Paul ; but that the latter 
had still felt himself at liberty to preach in Corinth, because no apostle had 
been there before him. This is an hypothesis quite as superfluous as it is 
unhistorical, since neither in the Book of Acts is there found any trace of 
Christianity at Corinth before Paul’s arrival, nor in’ the Epistles, in which, 
on the contrary, he states expressly that he was the jirst to.preach there (4 
Cor. iii. 6, 10), and that all other teachers had entered later into the work 
(1 Cor. iv. 15).— xara rd pétpov tod kavévoc] Here 1d pétpov is the measure de- 
Jined for the xavyaioba, as is clear from the previous ov yiei¢ Ta duetpa Kavy., 
—and_ roi xavévoc is the genitivus subjecti: the measure given by the drawn 
measuring-line. And the subsequent wetpov’ is an apposition to rod Kavévoc 
not at all unnatural (as Hofmann declares it), but attracted by the relative 
clause according to a very frequent Greek usage (see Bernhardy, p. 302 ; 


1¥or which Grotius ought not to have 
conjectured wétpov. But the most mistaken 
view as regards mérpov is that lighted on by 
Hofmann, who attaches it to o déos: ‘ the 
God of measure,” by which, in his view, it is 
affirmed that ‘‘ to everything God sets some 
sort of measure.” As if this singular way 
of designating God (altogether different 
from such appellations as: the God of 


glory, of peace, of love, of hope, and the 
like) were even possible without the article 
before pétpov! In Wisd. ix, 1, warépwv re- 
quired no article, according to the well- 
known anarthrous usage of mwaryp in the 
singular and plural; and in Ecclus, xxxili. 
1, révtwv Without the article is quite accord- 
ing to rule. 


- CHAP. x., 14. 631 


Pflugk, ad. Hur. Hee. 771 ; Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Phaed. p. 66. FE; Rep. p. 
402 C ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 246 [E. T. 286]) ; consequently not again 
the measure of the boasting, but, as appears from the definition of the object 
aimed at égrxéobar dype x. budv, the spatial measure, namely, how far one is to 
reach (see what follows), or, dropping the figure: the measure of extent of the 
destined working. Paul, namely, conceives of the local extension assigned 
to his official working as a space marked out by God with a measuring-line, 
in which he takes his stand and is able to reach to all points of it without 
unduly stretching or straining himself, ver. 14. Hence : éguxéobar adype Kai 
juav, which is not simply exegetical (Hofmann), nor does it express the 
consequence (Riickert, de Wette), but is, in accordance with the notion of 
éuép., to be taken as infinitive of definition of ov éuép. ru. 6 Ade uétpov. — Kavov 
does not mean sphere of vocation (Flatt and many others), but measuring-rod, 
measuring-line. ere the latter. Comp. Gal. vi. 16; Aq. Job xxxviii. 5 ; 
Ps. xviii. 4. See in general, Duncan, Lev. ed. Rost. p. 587 f. On pepifew 
tivi Tt, to impart something to oné, assign as one’s share, comp. Rom. xii. 3 ; 
1 Cor. vii. 17 ; Heb. vii. 23 ; Polyb. xi. 28. 9, xxxi. 18.8. The égcxveioOa is, 
in keeping with the figurative representation of the state of the matter (sce 
especially ver. 14), not to arrive at (Hofmann), which is only expressed 
by é@@dcapev, but to reach to, pertingere, as the Vulgate aptly renders it. 
The word is found nowhere else in the N. T., and is here selected for the 
sense indicated. Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 5, v. 5.8; Plut. Mor. p. 190 E; 
Lucian, Jup. conf. 19, al.; also Ecclus, xliii. 27, 30. The Corinthians, be- 
cause not to be found beyond the bounds of his xavév, were to the apostle 
épixtol, reachable. 

Ver. 14. A parenthetical (see on ver. 15) confirmation of édixécOar aypt kat 
duav : for not, as though we were such as do not reach to you, do we overstretch 
ourselves, t.c., dropping the figure : for we do not usurp for ourselves any 
extension of our working at variance with its destined limit, as would be 
. the case, if you lay beyond the measured-off province which is divinely 
assigned to us. Paul abides by his figure : for if he were not destined to 
extend his official working even to Corinth, and yet wished to do so, he 
would resemble aman who stretches himself beyond the boundary-line 
drawn for him, in order to reach to a point that lies beyond the limits which 
he is forbidden to overpass. — d¢ ju7) édixv. ei¢ buac| éguxv. is to be taken in no 
other sense than the previous ég:xéoOar. The present, however, denotes : as 
though we were persons, in whose case the reaching to you does not occur, i.e. 
whose position within their measured local district implies that you are not 
capable of being reached by them, because, forsooth, you lie beyond the 
limits of this district. Luther, Beza, and many others, overlooking this 
continuation of the figure, and taking égixvobuevor, in spite of the present 
(and in spite of the present drepexteivouer), historically, have explained it : 
ut si non pervenissemus, from which error there has sprung the participle of 
the second aorist, supported by very weak evidence, and yet preferred by 
Billroth. Regarding yw#, Winer, p. 442 [E. T. 595], very correctly remarks : 
‘a mere conception ; in point of fact, the state of the case is otherwise ; 
compare, on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26.” —dypr yap kai budv x.t.A.] This 


632 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
is now the historical position of the case, in confirmation of what was just 
Jiguratively expressed by ot yap . . . éavtotc. How fraught with shame must 
the sum of recollections, which this simple historical faet embraced, have 
been for the misled portion of the church! é$@dcauev is simply : we have 
arrived at (Rom. ix. 31; Phil. ii. 16; Matt. xii. 28; 1 Thess. ii. 16), not: 
we have arrived before (sooner than the opponents, Osiander, comp. Ewald). 
This important point Paul must have denoted by some such expression as 
é¢ac. éxeivovc (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 15). — év r6 evayy. r. X. | The gospel of Christ 
is conceived as the official element in which the é¢@dcayev took place : in 
the matter of the gospel, 7.e. in functione evangelica (Bengel). Comp. Rom. 
1/9 3° 2) Cor, vill. 18); Phil ‘iv.t3 3 Thess) aan ae 

Ver. 15. As otk cig Ta Guetpa Kavy. is evidently intended to resume the ody 
ei¢ Ta GueTpa Kavy. In ver. 13, and as ver. 14 is merely a confirmatory state- 
ment occasioned by éguxécOar ayps x. duov, itis most natural and logically 
most suitable, with Lachmann, Osiander, Ewald, to place the whole of ver. 
14 in a parenthesis (not the second half of the verse merely, as is done by 
Griesbach, Scholz, de Wette, Hofmann), so that xcavyéuevor depends on the 
xavynosueba to be supplied in the second clause of ver. 18, not on ob yap... 
imeperteiv. éavtovc (de Wette, Hofmann). To attach it, with Riickert (comp. 
Tischendorf), to é¢@dcauev is quite unsuitable, because the latter contains an 
historical remark,—only made, moreover, in passing,—and thus heterogeneous 
elements would be combined. — év addorpioug xéracc] object of the negatived 
ele Ta GueTtpa kavyaoba. With his opponents it was the case that their un- 
measured boasting referred to labours which were done by others, but were 
boasted of by them as their work. — éarida 6&8 Eyovtec| but having doubtless 
hope, when your faith increases, to become large among you according to our 
rule abundantly, t.e. but doubtless hoping, with the growth of your faith, 
to attain among you this, that starting from you we may be able still 
further abundantly to extend our working according to the measure of our 
destination. This meaning Paul expresses figuratively, and that with faith- 
ful adherence to the figure used in vy. 18, 14. He, namely, who can work 
Jar off, is a man of great stature, who without overstretching himself reach- 


es afar ; hence peyadvvOqva.’ 


1 weyad. is by most taken as celebrari, 
which departs from the figure and hence is 
at variance with the context (Luke i. 46; 
Acts v. 18, x. 46, xix. 17 ; Phil.i. 20). So Flatt, 
Biliroth, and Ewald: “to be exceedingly 
praised, instead of being bitterly blamed,” 
to which xara 7. kavova nuey is not suitable. 
The whole figure demands the explanation 
to become large (Matt. xxiii. 5; Luke i. 58), 


and only thus does it stand in its right rela- - 


tion to, and bearing on, avéavoy. 7. muoT. vm. 
Theodoret seems to have understood peyaa, 
rightly, since he explains it : mepa:tépw mopev- 
Comp. Luther: ‘‘ proceed further,”’ 
which explains the figurative expression no 
doubt, but does not translate it. Osiander 
understands under it an actual glorifying 


oyvac, 


Further : because Paul still thinks of working 


of the office—that its influence, greatness, 
and glory shall become advanced. Hof- 
mann: that the continuation of the preach- 
ing in the far West will make him still 
greater, whereby he will have still more 
ground for boasting—a view made impossi- 
ble by the fact that év iuty must be joined 
with peyad, «.7.A. With all such interpreta- 
tions the bold, concrete figure, which is set 
forth in peyadvvd., is—in opposition to the 
connection—abandoned according to a sub- 
jective standard of taste, as if it were too 
strong and harsh. Erasmus in his Annot. 
(not in the Paraphr.) aptly says: ‘‘ Significat 
se sperare futurum ut in dies crescente 
fide Corinthiorum creseat ipse et major ina- 
jorque fiat.” 


CPAP) Xi, 16. 633 
forth to distances indefinitely remote, he hopes to become large ei¢ repicceiav 
(comp. Prov. xxi. 5). Stiil he knows that this wide working, on which he 
cherishes the hope of being able to enter, will bein keeping with the line 
drawn for him by God—i.e. the spatial limit divinely appointed for himn— 
and thus will be no trepexreivery éavt.; hence katd rov kavéva Auor,? 
which Beza ought not to have taken for év t6 xavdve ju. (comp. ver. 18). 
Further : the possibility of this wider working will not set in, if the faith of 
the Oorinthians does not grow, namely, intensively, by becoming always purer, 
Jirmer, and more living than now, because Paul will not sooner be able to 
leave Corinth and travel onward ; hence aifavoy. ti¢ Tiotewc bdr,” SO 
that thus—and what a wholesome impulse ought this to be to them—it is 
the Corinthians themselves, among whom he will see himself brought to the 
point of being able to extend his working further ; hence év tuiv*® peyadvve. : 
among you to become large in order to further abundant working. — ei¢ repio- 
ceiav| for Paul knew that he was destined to preach the gospel among all 
nations (Rom. i. 14, 15, and see on Rom. xv. 23, 34; Acts xix. 21); hence 
beyond doubt he had already at that time the intention of proceeding by way 
of Rome to Spain. Thusin peyadvvijva . . . ei¢ tepiooeiav the whole grand 
feeling of his apostolic destiny finds earnest and true expression. Riickert, 
on the contrary, sees a touch of zrony, as if Paul would say : if the Corinthi- 
ans would become a church as perfect as he wishes and expects, there will 
thence accrue a gain also for him ; he, too, will then grow with them, and 
become capable not only of doing in the midst of them what is necessary, 
but also of doing yet something more, of growing, as it were, beyond the 
proper stature, etc. But both xara tov xavéva judv and eic srepicceiav are at 
variance with the character of irony. If Paul had wished to express him- 
self ironically, he would have written possibly év tuiv peyadvOivac oAiyov or 
the like, which would have expressed something different from what he 
properly meant. 

Ver. 16. Infinitive without a connecting kai, and all the less therefore 
dependent in its turn on éArida 08 éyovrec, but rather infinitive of the aim: 


1 Rickert, at variance with the context, 
understands under xavwv here the apostle’s 
rule of not working where others had al- 
ready wrought. See against this, ver. 13. 

2 Bengel rightly remarks on the present 
participle: ‘‘ Paulus Corinthios neque ante 
tempus omittere voluit, neque alios diutius 
differre.’”? Olshausen erroneously thinks 
that Paul was waiting for the completion of 
faith among the Corinthians. The apostle 
rather means the proportionate increase of 
the faith of the readers, which hitherto 
had not attained such a degree of develop- 
ment as to makeit possible for him to with- 
draw his working from them and extend 
the sphere of his activity further. This 
delicate reference of avéavou. T. riot. Va, 
which appeals to the whole sense of honour 
in the readers, and according to which Paul 


makes his further working at a distance de- 
pend on their Christian progress, is missed 
by Hofmann, who explains avéavop. k.7.A. 
merely in the sense of coincidence in time 
(while faith grows). This is bound up with 
his incorrect joining of ev duty with avgavou. 
See the following note. 

3 This év vucvis not, with Luther, Castalio, 
Beza, Mosheim, Billroth, de Wette, Hof- 
mann, to be joined to avégavon. (whereby 
either vpav or év vuty at any rate, even with 
the meaning imported into it by Hofmann: 
“within your own sphere,’’ would seem 
very superfluous) ; nor yet is it to be taken 
as per vos (Erasmus, Grotius, Flatt), which 
only impairs the vividness and complete- 
ness of the figure, and in substance is al- 
ready contained in avéavom, 7. maT. UE, 


634 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


we hope to become exceedingly large among you, in order to preach the gospel 
unto the lands lying beyond you,’ not within the boundary-line of another to 
boast of what is already done. This negative part is a side-glance at the 
opponents who in Corinth, which lay within the range of the line drawn 
for Paul, and so év dddorpiw xavévz, had boasted in regard to the circumstan- 
ces of the church there, which they had, in fact, found already shaped 
before they came, consequently ei¢ ra érouwa. Comp. Calvin : ‘‘quum Paulus 
militasset, ili triumphum agebant.” Beza and Billroth, also de Wette and 
Hofmann (who thinks all three infinitives dependent on éaz. éy.), take the 
infinitive as epexegesis of peyadvv. by adding an id est ; but this is pre- 
cluded by the correct connection of év tuiv with peyadavé. For, if Paul 
hopes to become large among the Corinthians, this cannot mean the same 
thing as to preach away beyond Corinth (cic ra brepéxewa bu. ebayy.). No ; 
that peyadavv0. denotes the becoming capable for further extended working, 
the being put into a position for it, and accordingly the aim of this is : eic¢ ra 
bmepéxerva buov evayy. Ewald would make the infinitives ebayy. and xavy. 
dependent on xara 7. kavéva ju., 80 that they would explain in what more 
precisely this rule consists ; but this is forbidden by the fact that ei¢ repicc. 
is not placed before xara 7. x. 4u.—The adverb trepéxecva, ultra, is bad Greek. 
See Thomas Magister, p. 3886 : éméxewa phtopec Aéyovor. . . brepéxerva dé pdvor 
ol cbpoaxec (the rabble). Comp. Bos, Hllips., ed. Schaef. pp. 288, 290. — 
ec before irepéx. does stand for év (Flatt and others), but comp. 1 Pet. i. 
25; John viii. 26 ; 1 Thess. i. 9. —ov« év dddorp. xavévi] obx, not wm, is here 
used quite according to rule (in opposition to Riickert), since the ovx« év G22. 
xav. 18 correlative to the ei¢ ra brepéxerva budv as contrast (Hartung, Partikell. 
Il. p. 125 f.). And this correlation demands that év be understood not of 
the object of cavyac0a: (Hofmann), but locally, to which also the very notion 
of xavév (ver. 18) points : within the measuring-line drawn for another, i.e. 
as to substance : in the field of activity divinely destined for another. — On 
elc With xavy., in reference to, comp. Arist. Pol. v. 10. 

Ver. 17 f. The éy dad. nav. eic ra érocna xavy. was the way of the oppo- 
- nents, whose self-glorying was selfish ostentation. Therefore Paul now lays 
down the law of the right xavyaicOa, and establishes it in a way (ver. 18), 
the application of which to the perversity of the opponents’ boasting could 
not but be obvious. —dé] leading over from the previous xavyfoacba to the 
law of the xavyacOa. ‘But as regards self-glorying, the maxim applies : 
Let him that glories glory (not otherwise than) in the Lord,” let him have God 
as the object of his xavyaofa:, inasmuch as it is God, by whose grace and 
power he has dnd does everything. Paul himself gives a glorious example 
of the év xupio Kavyao0a: in 1 Cor. xv. 10. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, 10. —As 6 
Kavy. év kup. kavy. is an O. T. maxim well known to the reader (Jer. ix. 23 
f.; comp. 1 Cor. i. 31), and the context contains nothing at all which would 
be at variance with the original reference of the év kupiw to God, viewed as 
object of the kavyacfa, in which this-is grounded (see on Rom, ii. 17), it is 


1“ Meridiem versus ct occidentem; nam Athenis Corinthum venerat, Act. xviii. 1,” 
Bengel. 


NOTES. 635 


not to be understood of Christ (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, Riickert, and others), 
nor is év to be taken in the sense of communion (Calvin, Bengel, Osiander). 
Observe, moreover, what a moral difference there is between this Christian 
Kavyacba év Oe (comp. Rom. v. 11) and that of the Jewish particularism, 
Rom. ii. 17. — Ver. 18. Hor not he who acts in the opposite way, not he who, 
instead of glorying év xvpiw, makes himself the object which he commends to 
others, is approved, is in the position of attested Christian character, but he, 
whom the Lord commends. The latter is—and that in contrast with the oppo- 
nents extolling themselves—the practical commendation, which God bestows 
on those concerned by His whole gracious aid, by the success and _ blessing 
attending their work, by their rescue from dangers, etc. In this de facto 
Geia whooc (Theodoret), which is made known before the eyes of the world, 
they have at the same time the right de facto self-commendation, vi. 3 ff., 
without being aireraiveto: (aiteravétove yap poet 6 bedc, Clem. 1 Cor. 30). — 
Observe, further, the emphatic éxeivoc as well as the unrestricted déxiwoc, the 
notion of which is not to be referred merely to Auman recognition (Hof- 
mann), as in Rom. xiv. 18, where roi¢ dvOpéz. stands beside it ; comp. rather 
1 Cor. xi. 19; Rom. xvi. 10 ; Jas. i. 12. (a1) 





Notes py AMERICAN [\prror. 


(x°) The. change of tone and style. Vv. 1-18, 


This change, which is obvious to every careful reader, has been explained by 
Stanley as due either to the reception of fresh tidings from Corinth of a relapse 
of fervour on the part of the church, or to a return on the part of the Apostle to 
his former feeling of apprehension (ii. 1). Hodge, on the other hand, says that 
in the previous nine chapters Paul was addressing the faithful and obedient 
portion of the church, while here he has in view the false teachers and their ad- 
herents, who not only made light of his authority, but corrupted the gospel, 
and he therefore naturally assumes a tone of authority and severity. 


(5°) ‘* Hvery high thing that exalteth itself.’ Ver. 5, 


The conflict here referred to is that between the wisdom of the world and the 
wisdom of God, which has continued from Paul’s day to our own. Scientists 
‘and philosophers exalt their own opinions against ‘‘the knowledge of God,” 
which they deem foolishness. Here Paul teaches that they are not to be met 
with carnal weapons by turning the gospelintoa philosophy. This would make 
it a human conflict on both sides, whereas we are to rely not upon power of ar- 
gument, but on the demonstration of Spirit, setting in opposition to human 
reasonings the testimony of God. This is the weapon that is mighty before 
God and at last subdues all opposition. 


(K*) ‘* Not for your destruction.” Ver. 8. 


The word here used is the same as that employed in ver. 4 of the pulling down 
_ of strongholds. The Revision of 1881 preserves the uniformity of terms by 
giving the parenthesis thus: ‘*‘ Which the Lord gave for building you up, and 


636 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


not for casting you down.” The Apostle’s authority was given to him not for 
his own exaltation or for putting down his personal enemies, but for the build- 
ing up of the church in holiness and peace. 


(L°) «* His bodily presence is weak.” Ver. 10. 


The traditions which represent Paul as short in stature and unattractive in 
appearance (Renan calls him ‘an ugly little Jew”) are, as Dr. Meyer says, of no 
value. The comparison of Barnabas to Jupiter and Paul to Mercury by the 
people of Lystra (Acts xiv. 12) implies that he was the less commanding of the 
two. But his whole history, his unceasing labonrs, his constant journeyings, his 
innumerable sufferings, prove that he was not physically a man of feeble con- 
stitution. 


(Li°) Self-measurement. Ver. 12. 


Calvin applies the whole passage to the monks of his day, who while igno- 
rant as donkeys, were held to be learned, and if any one had even a tincture of 
elegant letters he spread his plumage like a peacock. Yet if one removed the 
cowl and examined the facts, he found nothing but emptiness. Why? The 
old proverb, Ignorance is bold. But particularly because they measured them- 
selves by themselves. And since barbarism prevailed in their cloisters, it is no 
wonder that the one-eyed is king among the blind. 


(m°) Paul's province. Ver. 14. 


By this term the Revised Version renders the word given in the A. V. as 
rule (ver. 13), ‘There is no ground for the notion that the Apostles portioned 
out the world amongst them with a peculiar province for each, which could not 
be, since their authority arose not from election or appointment to a particular 
place, but from their plenary knowledge, infallibility, and supernatural power, 
and was therefore the same everywhere and in relation to all the churches. 
Yet it is plain from Galatians ii. 9, that in the great divisions of Jew and Gen- 
tile, the former belonged to the original Apostles James, Peter, and John, the 
latter to Paul and his companions, It was also the Apostle’s maxim never to 
make a permanent stay where the gospel had already been preached, so much 
so that his visit to Rome was regarded by him as taken merely on his way to 
Spain, which was still open to a new teacher (Rom. xv. 18-24). 


(mm°) The rule of true boasting. Vv. 17, 18. 


This is furnished by the Apostle in the words of Jeremiah, which he recites 
without naming their author. There are occasions when it is necessary for a 
Christian to assert his character and works and claims before men, but when 
these occur, the whole praise should be ascribed to God, who is the sole source 
of all success. This rule was binding both upon Paul and upon his oppo- 
nents ; the difference between them was that he observed the rule, but they 
did not. 


CHAP. XI. 637 


CHAPTER XI. 


Ver. 1. dveiyeofe] Elz. : jveiyecfe, following min. Chrys. Theophyl. But the 
former is decisively attested by B D E G L M (N has avaoyeobe) and many 
min., also Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theoph. ms. K and several min., as also 
Theodoret, have avéyecbe, which appears to be a corruption of the original 
dveiyeote, easily arising from the avéyeobe that soon follows. — 17 agpootvy] 
So Mill, Beng. Matth. Griesb. Scholz, Reiche, following K L and many min. 
Copt. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oec. Theophylact, ms. But there is far more 
support for the reading of Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. : rv agpoctvyc, following 
BDE ®&, min. (Elz. has rtirje ddp., following F G, min. vss. Fathers). This rv 
ddpootvnc is to be held as the original, not, however, as if Griesbach’s reading 
had arisen only from a copyist’s error of itacism (77 for 7, as Rinck holds, 
LIucubr. crit. p. 167, and Riick.), but on account of the relatively preponderant 
attestation, and because the following add kai avéyeobé wov most naturally sug- 
gested to the copyists to regard ov as the object of aveiyeobe, to which then the 
genitive d@poctvyc was no longer suitable. T7 agpoovvy had to be made out 
of it (in regard to folly), and thereupon the superfluous rt: easily disappeared 
through the following r7. The reading mixpdv tH¢ adpootvyc pov (F G, It. Vulg.) 
is explained partly from imperfect critical restoration (of the genitive), partly 
as an indication of the right construction. — Ver. 3. oitw] is wanting in B D* 
FG &, It. Copt. Goth. Arm. Clem. Epiph. Lucif. Gaud. ; deleted by Lachm. 
and Riick. An addition. — After drAdrytoc B F G, S- min. Syr. p. (with 
asterisk), Aeth. Copt. Goth. Boern. Pol. Aug. Beda have xai rie dyvdrnto¢g (so 
Lachm.); D E, Clar. Germ. Epiph. (once) change the order of the two 
parts ; Epiph. (once) has dyveiag instead of ayvéryroc. After ver. 2 (dyv7v) 
dyvotntog was written alongside as a gloss on dmAdryroc, and was already at an 
early date incorporated in the text, partly behind, partly before dx/67. — Ver. 
4. dveiyecbe] The form jveiyeofe (Elz.) is condemned here also by decisive 
evidence. Comp. ver. 1. Lachm. reads dvéyecfe, but only supported by B, 
where it has arisen from the apparent grammatical necessity of the present. 
Fritzsche also, on account of this necessity, declares for the present ; but see 
the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 6. gavepwhévtec] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. [also 
Tregelles and Westcott and Hort] read gavepdoarrec, supported by BF G 8* 17. 
pavepwhévtes was explained by the gloss ¢avepwcartec éavrovc, as is actually the 
reading in M, 108** Arm., and thus the active participle came into the text, 
where it was the more easily retained, as it could be referred without difficulty 
to Tv yvoow. —Ver. 14. Oavyactév] B D* F G 8, 17, 39, 67** 74, Or, have 
Gata. So Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. The former is a gloss. — Ver. 16. The 
order Kay pukp. Tt Kavy. (Elz. has wixp. tr. xayo xavy.) has decisive attestation. 
— Ver. 21. 709evnvayev] Lachm. has the perfect, but follows only by B &, 80. — 
Ver. 27. év before xézw is on decisive evidence, with Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck., 
to be deleted as an addition. — Ver. 28. émiovotacic wov] BEF G S*: ériotaoic 


638 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


pot; So Lachm. Ruck. ’Ezioraove is supported also by D E &8** 39, al., which 
have the reading ériotasic pov. Comp. also instantia mea in Vulg. Boern. 
Ambrosiast. Pel. The word éricvorao.g has crept in from Acts xxiy. 12, be- 
cause éxiorao.g Was not understood, and ov is a hasty correction. — Ver. 32. 
0éAwr] is wanting in important witnesses, deleted by Lachm, Ruck. and Tisch. 
An exegetical addition. 


ConTENTS.— The apostle’s self-glorying against his opponents. (1) Intro- 
duction, vv. 1-4. (2) Theme of the self-praise, ver. 5 f. (8) Vindication 
of the special boast that he had preached to his readers gratuitously (vv. 
7-9), a practice which he will continue to observe on account of his oppo- 
nents (vv. 10-15). Then, (4) after a repeated entreaty for patience towards 
the folly of his self-glorying, which entreaty he accompanies with bitter re- 
marks (vv. 16-20), he compares himself with his enemies (a) in general, ver. 
21 ; (0) specially as a Jew, ver. 22); (c) asa servant of Christ, ver. 23 ff., 
in which latter relation he vindicates his sufferings, toils, and dangers, as 
things of which he will glory (vv. 23-80). Lastly, (5) after a solemn assur- 
ance that he does not lie, he begins an account of his experiences of suffer- 
ing (vv. 31-83), which, however, is not continued. 

Ver. 1. Would that ye would bear from me a little bit of folly! The con- 
nection of thought is this : after the principle just expressed in x. 18, I am 
indeed acting foolishly when I boast of myself ; but would that you became. 
not angry on that account ! Jrony ; the apostle’s repravrodoyia was not, like 
that of his opponents, idle self-exaltation, but a vindication enjoined by the 
circumstances and accordant with his duty, in order to drive the refractory 
boasters at length quite out of the field. Flatt and Baur would insert an 
also (from me also as from mine enemies), but quite arbitrarily. — é¢e/or] 
see on 1 Cor. iv. 8. —dvetyeobe] Mellenistic form with the simple augment 
(Piers. ad Moer. p. 176) instead of the common #veiy. in the older writers 
(Buttmann, Ausfithrl. Sprachl. II. p. 189 f. ; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Choeph. 
735) : The imperfect is not : have borne (Erasmus, Calvin, and others), but : 
ferretis, would bear. Comp. eife with imperfect : ‘‘ ubi optamus eam rerum 
conditionem quam non esse sentimus,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 516; Ellendt, 

. Lex. Soph. I. p. 499; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 215]. — pov] does 
not belong to d¢poctvyc (Hofmann), so that its position standing apart and 
prefixed would be emphatic,—which, however, does not at all suit the en- 
clitic form,—but, as genitivus subjecti, to uixpdy te agpoo., SO that pup. te has 
two genitives with it. Comp. LXX. Job vi. 26: oidé yap tuay ghéyua ppya- 
roc avé€ouat. See in general, Kithner, § 542. 3; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309 ; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 829 B. With the reading juxpdv rH a¢pociry (see the 
critical remarks) it would have to be attached to ave/y. (would that ye en- 
dured me a little as to folly), not to rH adpootvy, as Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 53 
f., contrary to the simple order of the words, prefers, and juxpév would have 
to be taken either of time, or, with Reiche, of degree: paulisper, ‘‘ non 
nimio fastidio.” —daAad Kai dvéyeohé pov] corrective : yet this wish is not 
needed, ye really bear patiently with me. The imperative interpretation of 
avéyeobe (Vulgate, Pelagius, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, 


CHAP EXT.§ 2: 639 


Hofmann), according to which Paul would proceed from wish to entreaty, 
would be quite tame on account of the preceding wish, and in the corrective 
form unsuitable. — kai] also, i.e. in reality. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
132. — pov] avéyveobe governs either the accusative, as in the case of pixpdv tu be- 
fore (and this is the more common construction in Greek authors), or, as here, 
the genitive (so usually in the N. T.), which is also found in Greek authors 
when the object is a thing (Hom. Od. xxii. 423, and later authors, such as 
Herodian, viii. 5. 9, 1. 17. 10), but very seldom with persons (Plat. Protag. 
p- 323 A), without a participle standing alongside, as Xen. Anab. ii. 2.1; 
Plat. Pol. li. p. 367 D, or without a simple participle, as Plat. Pol. viii. p. 
564 D, Apol. p. 31 B ; Herod. v. 89, vii. 159. 

Ver. 2. Ground of the a/Ad kai avéyeofé pou : My jealousy for you is, in 
fact, a divine jealousy ; how can you then refuse to me the dvéyecfa: ! Riick- 
ert refers ydp to ddedov . . . ddpootvyc, but in this way aAAd Kai avéyeohé pov is 
overleaped all the more violently, seeing that it is a correction of what goes 
before. Calvin (comp. Chrysostom and Bengel): ‘‘en cur desipiat, nam 
hominem zelotypia quasi transversum rapit.” Against this may be urged 
the emphatic @eov, in which lies the very point of the reason assigned. — 
CyAG yap bude «.t.A.| AS Paul, in what follows, represents himself as a mar- 
riage-friend (comp. John iii. 29) who has betrothed the bride to the bride- 
groom, and is now anxious that she may not let herself be led astray by an- 
other, (746 isto be taken in the narrowest sense as equivalent to Cyiorure : 
I am jealous concerning you (comp. Num. v. 14 ; Ecclus. ix. 1), for the mar- 
rilage-friend very naturally takes the bridegroom’s part. The more indefinite 
interpretation : [am zealous concerning you (Flatt and others), is therefore, 
according to the context, too general, and the explanation : vehementer amo 
vos (Rosenmiiller, comp. Fritzsche), is at variance with the context. — Geod 
fiw] with a jealousy, which God has ; which is no human passion, but an 
emotion belonging to God, which I therefore have in common with Him. 
Paul consequently conceives of God as likewise jealous concerning the Co- 
rinthian church (juac), that she might not, as the bride of Christ, suffer her- 
self to be led astray. God appears in the O. T. as the spouse of His people, 
and therefore jealous regarding it (Isa. liv. 5, Ixii. 5 ; Jer. iii. 1 ff. ; Ezek. 
xvi. 8 ff., xxiii. ; Hos. ii. 18, 19). Now, as the representative of God in 
the theocracy of the N. T. is Christ, with whom, therefore, the church ap- 
pears connected, partly as spouse (see on Rom. vii. 4), partly as betrothed 
(with reference to the completion of the marriage at the Parousia), as here 
(comp. Eph. v. 25 ff.) ; the falling away from Christ must therefore be the 
object of divine jealousy, and so Paul knows his {yAoc, the C#A0¢ of the mar- 
riage-friend, as the ¢7A0c of God. cov has been taken as genitivus auctoris 
(Wolf and others, comp. Flatt, de Wette), or as: zeal for God (Rom. x. 2, so 
Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Schulz), or as: zeal pleasing to God (Bill- 
roth, comp. Flatt), or as: zeal extraordinarily great (Emmerling, so also 
Fritzsche ; comp. Bengel: ‘‘ zelo sancto et magno’’) ; but all these inter- 
pretations lie beyond the necessary definite reference to what follows, in 
which areason is given for the very predicate fod. (N°) — jpuocduny yap K 7.2. | 
Sor I have betrothed you. . . but I fear, etc., ver. 8, so that, with Lachmann, 


640 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


only a comma is to be put after ver. 2. apudtev, adaptare, then specially in 
the sense of betroth ; see Wetstein. The more Attic form is dpudrrew. See 
Gregor. p. 154, Schaef. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 241. That Paul has ex- 
pressed himself contrary to the Greek usage (according to which dpudtecbai | 
ta means: to betroth oneself to a woman, Herod. v. 82, 47, vi. 65), is 
only to be said, in so far as a classical writer would certainly have used the 
active (Herod. ix. 108; Pind: Pyth, ix. 207), although in late writers the 
middle also occurs in the active sense (see the passages from Philo in Loes- 
ner, p. 820, e.g. de Abr. p. 364 B: ydpoc bv dpudterac 7dovy), and here the 
following évi avdpi leaves no doubt of the reference : I have joined (i.e. ac- 
cording to the context, betrothed) you to one husband. Paul regards himself 
asa marriage-friend (xpouvyorup budv éyevounv kal Tov yduov uecityc, Theodoret), 
by whose intervention the betrothal of the Corinthians with Christ was 
brought to pass. Chrysostom aptly says on the figurative representation of 
the matter : pvyorelac yap éote Kaipd¢ 6 Tapav Kaipdc’ 6 d& Tov TacTdduv ETEPOC, 
btrav Aéywou’ dvéotn 6 voudiog. . .°O pdduota robroe (to the readers) édepev 
akiwua, TovTO TiOnow, savTov ev ev YOoA THC Tpouvynotpiac, éxelvouc dé év Take Tic 
viene othoac.  Pelagius, Elsner, Mosheim, Emmerling wrongly hold that 
he conceives himself as father of the Corinthians ; their father (but this fig- 
ure is here quite out of place) he has, in fact, only come to be through their 
conversion to Christ (1 Cor. iv. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 14 ; comp. Tit. i. 4) ; he had 
not been so already before. Regarding the marriage-friend of the Jews, }2WV, 
rapaviugtoc, Who not only wooed the bride for the bridegroom, but who was 
the constant medium between the two, and at the wedding itself was regu- 
lator of the feast, see Schéttgen, Hor. ad Joh. iii. 29. With the Rabbins, 
Moses is represented as such a marriage-friend. See Rab. Sal. ad Hvod. 
xxxiv. 1, al. —évi avdpi] to one husband, to belong to no one further. — rap- 
Aévov ayvyv x.t.A.]| Aim, with which he had betrothed the Corinthians to a 
single husband : in order to present a pure virgin to Christ (tapaor., comp. 
iv. 14), namely, at the Parousia, when Christ appears as bridegroom, to 
fetch home the bride, Matt. xxv. 1 ff.; Eph. v. 27; Rev. xix. 7-9. The 
church in its entirety, asa moral person, is this virgin. On dyv#v, comp. 
Dem. 1871. 23; Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 488 C; Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D. 
The whole emphasis is on rapfévov ayvav. When this is attended to, there 
disappears the semblance of ei¢ avgp and 6 Xpioréc being different persons, — 
a semblance for which Riickert blames the apostle. Fritzsche regards 76 
XpiorG as apposition to é2 avdpi (In which Riickert agrees with him), and 
encloses rapactica between two commas; but this is an unnecessary and 
enfeebling breaking up of the passage. Beza and Bengel connect évi avdpi 
with wapaor., and take 76 Xpior@ likewise epexegetically. But the absolute 
npuooaunv buac Would in fact mean : I have betrothed myself to you! In order 
that it may not mean this, it must necessarily be joined to évi avdpi. 

Ver. 8. The point of comparison is the leading astray by the devil, which 
took place in the case of Eve (through the serpent), and was to be feared in 
that of the Corinthians (through the false apostles, Satan’s servants, ver. 
15). For Paul presupposes it as well known to his readers, that Satan had 
led astray Eve by means of the serpent. To him and to them the serpent 


CHAP. XI., 4. 641 


was by no means either a symbol or a mystical figure of the cosmical principle 
(Martensen). (0°) Comp. Wisd. ii. 23 f. ; 4 Macc. xvii. 8; 1 John iii. 8 ; 
Rey. xii. 9, 14 f., xx. 2; and see on John viii. 44, and Grimm on Wisd. J.c. 
For the monstrous inventions of the later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, Ent- 
decktes Judenth. I. p. 830 ff. — Paul’s mention (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 15) of Hve 
(not Adam) is alike in keeping with the narrative (Gen. iii.) and with the 
comparison, since the church is represented as feminine (comp. Ignat. Eph. 
interpol. 17). In Rom. v. 12 and 1 Cor. xv. 22, the connection demanded 
the mention of Adam. — 6 édic] the well-known serpent. — év rH ravoupy. 
avrov| instrumental. Comp. Eph. iv. 14 ; Aq. Gen. iii. 1: 6 d¢c¢ qv ravoirp- 
yoo, Ignat. Phil. 11 interpol. : 6 oxods6de¢ dgue k.7.2. — gbaph| become corrupted, 
not be corrupt (Ewald). Paul expresses himself with tender forbearance ; 
the corruption of the church by anti-Pauline doctrine (ver. 4) he sees as a 
danger. — and tic draér. x.t.2.] a pregnant phrase: lest your thoughts 
(comp. iii. 14, iv. 4, x. 5) become corrupted and led away from the simplicity 
towards Christ (ei¢ X. is not equivalent to év X., as the Vulgate, Beza, 
Calvin, and others have it). See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 63 f. ; Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 277 [E. T. 822]. The drAdrne } ei¢ X. is the quality of simple, 
honest fidelity in the rap§évo¢ ayv#, who shares her heart with no other than 
with her betrothed. 

Ver. 4. An ironical (and therefore not conflicting with Gal. i. 18) reason 
assigned for that anxiety. or if, indeed, my opponents teach and work some- 
thing so entirely new among you, one would not be able to blame you for being 
pleased with it. — Regarding «i pév, if indeed, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
414 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 522. — 6 épyouevoc] does not refer to 6 dguc, ver. 
3 (Kniewel). It might doubtless mean the jirst comer, as Emmerling and 
Billroth hold (Bernhardy, p. 318), comp. Gal. v. 10 ; but, since Paul man- 
ifestly has in view the conduct of the whole fraternity of opposing teachers 
(see immediately, ver. 5), it is rather this totwm genus that is denoted by 6 
épxeduvoc, and that concretely, and in such a fashion that their emergence 
is vividly illustrated by reference to one definitely thought of, of whom, 
however, the point is left undetermined who he is: 7s qui venit. Comp. 
Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 65 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. v. 8. 22. The word ex- 
hibits the persons meant in the light of outsiders, who come to Corinth and 
there pursue their courses in opposition to the apostle. They are intruders 
(comp. ili. 1), and by the present. tenses their coming and practices are de- 
noted as still presently prevailing, just as this corrupting intercourse had 
been already going on for a considerable time. Ewald thinks here, too, of 
a special individual among the counter-apostles. — dAAov "Iycovv Knptocer| 
z.e. so preaches of Jesus, that the Jesus now preached appears not to be the 
same as was previously preached,’ consequently as if a second Jesus. 
Hence, to explain it more precisely, there is added : dv obk éxnpbEauev : who 
was not the subject-matter of our preaching, of whom we have known noth- 
ing and preached nothing, therefore not the crucified Saviour (1 Cor. ii. 2) 


1J7f Paul had written aAdov Xpiorov, the but another is the Christ. How unsuitable 
reading of F. G, Arm. Vulg., the meaning this is, is self-evident. 
of it would be: he preaches that not Jesus, 


642 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


through whom men are justified without the law, etc. dAso¢ negatives 
simply the identity, érepo¢ at the same time the similarity of nature: an 
other Jesus... a different spirit. Comp. Acts iv..12; Gal. i. 6, 7; 1 Cor. 
xii. 9, xv. 40. — } rvedpua étepov x.t.A.]| 7, or, in order to describe this reform : 
atory. working from another side, another kind of Spirit, etc. As the 
false apostles might have boasted that only through them had the right 
Jesus been preached to the Corinthians,’ they might also have added that 
only through their preaching had the readers received the true Holy Spirit, 
whom they had not before received, namely, when Paul had taught them 
(6 oix éAGBete). Moreover, it is decidedly clear from # rvebwa érepov x.7.2. 
that it cannot have been (this in opposition to Beyschlag) a more exact 
historical information and communication regarding Jesus, by means of 
which the persons concerned attempted to supplant Paul among the Corin- 
thians. It was by means of Judaistic false doctrines ; comp. ver. 13 ff. 
See also Klépper, p. 79 f. — 6 ob« édéEac0e] for the Pauline gospel was ac- 
cepted by the readers at their conversion : the gospel brought by the false 
apostles was of another kind (érepov), which was not before accepted by them. 
Riickert arbitrarily says that édé=ao6e is equivalent to éAaBere, and that the for- 
mer is used only to avoid the repetition of the latter. How fine and accurate, 
on the other hand, is Bengel’sremark : ‘‘ Verba diversa, rei apta ; non con- 
currit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in recipiendo evangelio.” 
Comp. on the distinction between the two words, Theile, ad Jacob. p. 68. — 
Kara avetyecde| xaddc, like praeclare in the ironical sense of with Sull right. 
See on Mark vii. 9; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 271 ff. ; Dass. Il. p. 72 f. ; and 
regarding the ironical use of the adjective xadéc, Stallb. ad Rep. p. 505 C, 
607 E. According to Hofmann, xa4d¢ is an expression of an earnest ap- 
proval, which, however, is cancelled of itself by the impossibility of the 
case which is put. But in the protasis the case, in fact, is Just simply put, 
not put as impossible (comp. Gal. i. 8, 9) ; hence in the apodosis an avd0éua 
on the seducers, or a severe censure of those who did not withstand them, 
would have had its place in the mind of the apostle rather than a xadéc 
aveiyecbe earnestly meant. The imperfect aveiyecbe does not, indeed, in 
strict logic suit xypioce: and AauBavere in the protasis, and we should expect 
avéyeode, as is actually the reading of B. But it is not on that account to 
be explained as if ei éxjpvocev x.7.A. stood in the protasis (if the comer was 
preaching . . . ye would, etc.), as Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Cornelius 
i Lapide, and many others, including Baur, /.¢. p. 102, explained it, which 
is wrong in grammar; nor is—along with an otherwise correct view of the 
protasis—xaroe aveiyeofe to be taken in the historical sense, as has been 
attempted by some, as interrogatively (have you with right tolerated 
it 2), such as Heumann, by others, such as Semler,’ in the form of an indig- 
nant exclamation (you have truly well tolerated it!/), both of which mean- 
ings are logically impossible on account of the difference of tenses in the 


1 Against the interpretation that it wasa schlag, 1865, p. 239 f. 
spiritual, visionary Christ whom the Chris- 2 Tie is followed recently Peete in 
tian party had given out for the true one his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 261. 
(Schenkel, de Wette, and others), see Bey- 


: CHAP. RI Ds 643 


*» 

protasis and apodosis. No; we have here the transition from one construc- 
tion to the other. When Paul wrote the protasis, he meant to put avéyeobe 
in the apodosis ; but when he came to the apodosis, the conception of the 
utter non-reality of what was posited in the protasis as the preaching of 
another Jesus, etc., induced him to modify the expression of the apodosis 
in such a way, that now there is implied in it a negatived reality,‘ as if in 
the protasis there had stood ¢ éxfjpvocev x.t.A. For there is not another 
Jesus ; comp. Gal. ii. 6. Several instances of this variation in the mode 
of expression are found in classical writers. See Kiihner, II. p. 549; 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 489. Comp. on Luke xvii. 6. The reason for the 
absence of dv in the apodosis is, that the contents of the apodosis is rep- 
resented as sure and certain. See Kriiger, § 65, 5; Stallb. ad Plat. 
Sympos. p. 190 C; Kithner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 21; Bremi, ad Lys. 
Exe. IV. p. 4388 ff. 

Ver. 5. You might *well tolerate it, Paul had just said ; but every reader 
who knew the’apostle could not but at once of himself feel that he did not 
mean it so, that the meaning at his heart was rather: then you would be 
very far wrong in tolerating such novelties ; that he thus in the way of 
ironical censure makes it palpable to his readers that their complaisance 
towards the false apostles was the ground of his anxiety expressed in ver. 3. 
Hence he now by ydp* at once gives a reason for the censure of that complai- 
sance so disparaging to his own position as an apostle, which is conveyed in 
the ironical xatc aveiyecte. This ydp does not refer therefore to ver. 1, but 
to what immediately precedes, in so far, namely, as it was not meant ap- 
provingly (Hofmann), but in exactly the opposite sense. Hofmann ground- 
lessly and dogmatically replies that the reason assigned for an ironical praise 
must necessarily be itself ironical.* — Aoyifoua:] censeo, I am of opinion. 
Rom. ii. 3, iii. 28, viii. 18, al. — pydav borepyxévar] in. no respect have I re- 
mained behind. Comp. on Matt. xix. 20. Riickert without reason adds : 
“7.2. in my action.” The pndév, in no respect a stronger negation than the 


1 Here, too, the delicate and acute glance 
of Bengel saw the correct view: ‘ Ponit 
conditonem, ex parte reiimpossibilem ; ideo 
dicit in imperfecto toleraretis ; sed pro cona- 
tu pseudapostolorum non modo possibilem, 
sed plane presentem ; ideo dicit in prae- 
senti praedicat. Conf. plane Gal. i. 6 f.” 
Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 11. Riickert refines 
and imports a development of thought, 
which is arbitrarily assumed, and rests on 
the presupposition that there is no irony in 
the passage. With the same presupposition 
Hofmann assumes the intermingling of two 
thoughts, one referring to the present, the 
other to the past,—which would amount to 
a confusion of ideas without motive. This 
also in opposition to Klépper, p. 84, who 
thinks that Paul does not wish to charge 
the reader’S with the avéxyerdar for the im- 
mediate present, but had been distinctly 
aware that they had tolerated, etc. In 


that case we should have here a singular 
Jorbearance and a singular form of its ex- 
pression, the former as undeserved as the 
latter is unlogical. There was as little need 
for the alleged forbearance toward the 
readers as in ver. 19 f. 

2 §é, adopted by Lachm. on the testimony 
of B only, and approved by Riickert, ap- 
pears after et wév in ver. 4 as an alteration, 
because no reference was seen for the yap. 
With éé there would result the quite simple 
course of thought: ‘‘ /f indeed . . . Imean, 
however, etc., not as Riickert would have it, 
that Paul passes from the justification of 
the intended self-praise given in vy. 2-4 to 
the self-praise itself. 

3 Without conceding this arbitrary asser- 
tion, observe, morever, that ver. 5 also has 
a sufficiently ironic tinge. Comp. iv. 8, 9. 
See also Klopper. 


644 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


simple w# (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 10), excludes any restriction to some 
mere partial aspect of his official character. The perfect exhibits the state of 
the case asat present continuing to subsist (Bernhardy, p. 378): to stand be- 
hind. In xii. 11 the conception is different. — rdv trepriav aroorédwy| The 
genitive with a verb of comparison. Comp. Plat. Pol. 7, p. 589 E. See 
Matthiae, p. 886. Comp. Kypke, II. p. 265. dmepaiav, overmuch, supra 
quam valde, is not preserved elsewhere in old Greek, but is found again, . 
nevertheless, in Eustath. Od. i. p. 27, 85 : éore ydp more xal TO Aiav Kata THY 
tpaywdiav ypacbat Kardc, Ka? 6 cnuawduevov Aéyouév Tia brephiav odgov. Simi- 
larly we have érepdyav (2 Macc. viii. 85, x. 84 ; Strabo, iii. p. 147), trépev 
(Kypke, Obdss. Il. p. 267), izepava, etc., as well as generally Paul’s frequent 
application of compounds with iép (Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351). But 
whom does he mean by trav brepiiav arooréAwy ? According to Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the older commentators, also Em- 
merling, Flatt, Schrader, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Holtzmann™ (Judenth. 
und Christenth. p. 764), the actual swmmos apostolos, namely, Peter, James, 
and John (comp. Gal. ii, 9). But Paul is not contending against these, but 
against the false apostles (ver. 18); hence the expression : ‘‘ the over-great 
apostles,” which is manifestly selected not per’ éyxouiov (Chrysostom), but with 
a certain bitterness, would be very unsuitable here (comp. on the other hand, 
1 Cor. xv. 9, ix. 5) if the old apostles should be simply incidentally men- 
tioned, because they were possibly placed high above Paul by his oppo- 
nents.’ Rightly, therefore, Richard Simon,’ and others have followed Beza’s 
suggestion (comp. Erasmus in the Annot.), and understood the Judaistic 
anti-Pauline teachers to be the pseudo-apostles (vv. 18, 22), whose inflated ar- 
rogance in exalting themselves over Paul is caricatured. Nevertheless they 
are not to be considered as the heads of the Christ-party (comp. on x. 7). 


Remarx.—The reference of our passage to Peter, James, and John was sup- 
ported among the earlier Protestants from polemical considerations, for the 
comparison in itself and the plural expression were urged against the primacy 
of Peter. See Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 505. In defence of this primacy, it was 
maintained by the older Catholic writers that the equality referred to preach- 
ing and gifts, not to power and jurisdiction. See Cornelius a Lapide. 


Ver. 6. A more precise explanation of this uydév torepyxévat tov trepa. 
arootéAwy, starting from a concession, so that dé introduces something ap- 
parently opposed. Although, however, I am untrained in speech, yet I am not 
so in knowledge, but in everything we have become manifest among all in refer- 
ence to you. (P*) The view of Hofmann, that that concession bears on the 
preference of the opponents for Apollos, finds no confirmation in the dis- 
cussion that follows. Comp. on the contrary, x. 10. — éavepwfévteg does not 
apply to the yvéow (Bengel, Zachariae, and others), for how inappropriate 


1The immediately following et d€ Kat Schulz, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Fritzsche, Bill- 
istwTyns TS Ad6yw WOuld also be quite unsuit- roth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, 
able, since every other apostle, at least as Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, Weiss, Bey- 
much as Paul, was idtorns To Adyo. schlag. sora 
2 Alethius, Heumann, Semler, Michaelis, 


~ 


CHAPS Le pa. 645 


ver. 7 would then be! But Paul proceeds from the yréorc, which he has 
attributed to himself in opposition to the reproach of want of training in 
discourse, to his having become manifest in every respect, so that ri yvéoe: and 
éy wavri are related to one another as species and genus.’ It is arbitrary to 
supply a definite reference for ¢avepw@. Rosenmiiller : ‘‘ tanquam verum 
apostolum et doctorem ;” Riickert : ‘‘as apostle and honest man”); i 
every respect, says Paul, we have become manifest as to how we are consti- 
tuted ; and what kind of manifestation that was—its qualitative aspect— 
he leaves entirely to the judgment of his readers. Riickert (following Flatt) 
regards ¢ dé xal . . . yvdoes as a parenthesis, and places aAW év ravti x.7.A. 
in connection with ver. 5, so that Paul, instead of keeping to the infinitive 
construction, would pass over into the participial ; but after what has been 
said above, this is a quite superfluous expedient, according to which, more- 
over, ei dé cal. . . yvooes would only stand as a strangely isolated, as it 
were a forlorn thought, out of all connection. Olshausen, too (comp. Beza), 
breaks up the passage by taking the second add as corrective: ‘‘ Yet ye 
know in fact my whole conduct, why should I still describe it to you ?” 
And yet 442 év ravri stands in so natural relation and connection with the 
previous o¥ ri yvéoe, that it more readily occurs to us to take aaAd as : but 
on the contrary, than, with de Wette, to take it as co-ordinate with the first 
aAaiad (introducing a second apodosis), as in 1 Cor. vi. 11. — iWidrye 76 Adyw | 
Paul therefore did not reckon a scholastically-trained eloquence (and he is 
thinking here specially of the Hellenic type, of which in fact Corinth was a 
principal seat) as among the requisites for his office. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17, 
i. 1 ff But his opponents (comp. x. 10) disparaged him for the want of 
it. Regarding id:éryc, see on Acts iv. 13 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16. —7r% yvdoe] ‘* quae 
prima dos apostoli,” Bengel ; Matt. xii. 11 ; Eph. i. 34; Gal. i. 12, 15. 
—év ravti] not : at every time (Emmerling, Flatt), nor wbiqgue (Erasmus), 
but, as it always means with Paul : in every point, in every respect, iv. 8, vi. 
4, vil. 16, vill. 7, ix. 8; see Bengel. Particularly frequent in this Epistle: 
— After gavepubévrec, éouév is to be supplied from what goes before. The 
aorist contains the conception : have not remained hidden, but have become 
manifest. The perfect is different in v. 11. The device of Hofmann, that 
after ¢avepof, we should supply an édavepobnuev to be connected with év raow 
eic buac, yields a thought weak in meaning (‘‘after that we... had been 
made manifest we have . . . been made manifest in presence of you’’) and is 
utterly groundless. How altogether different it is at viii. 24! The transi- 


which all his Epistles and speeches in the 
Book of Acts bear testimony, could. yet 


1 Billroth follows the reading davepdcav- 
tes: ‘If I, however, am unskilled in an ar- 


tistic discourse of human wisdom, I am not 
so in the true, deep knowledge of Chris- 
tianity ; yea rather, I have made it (the 
knowledge) in every point known to you 
in all things.”” Ewald, following the same 
reading: “but people, who in everything 
(in every position) have spoken clearly re- 
garding all kinds of matters (é€v mdaovv) 
towards you.”’ 

2 How Paul, with the great eloquence to 


with truth call himself iéu7ns té Adyw, Au- 
gustine, de doctr. Christ. iv. 7, has rightly dis- 
cerned: ‘‘Sicut apostolum praecepta elo- 
quentiae secutum fuisse non dicimus: ita 
quod ejus sapientiam secuta sit eloquentia, 
non negamus.’’ Comp. also how Xenophon 
(de venat. 14, 3) designates and describes 
himself as édiotes, in contradistinction to 
the sophists. 


646 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
\ 

tion to the plural form inclusive of others (by which Paul means himself and 
his fellow-teachers) cannot surprise any one, since often in his case the 
purely personal consciousness and that of fellowship in a common office pre- 
sent themselves side by side. Comp. i1..23f., v.11; 1 Thess, iii. 4 f.; 
Philem. 7 f., al. — év raow] being separated from év ravrz cannot (as in Phil. 
iv. 2) be taken as newter (in all things, Billroth, Neander ; in all possible 
points, Hofmann : év raovv oi¢ rovoipev x. Aéyouev, Theophylact), but only as 
masculine: among all we have been made manifest in reference to you, that 
is, among all (i.e. coram omnibus) there has been clearly displayed, and has 
remained unknown to none, there lation in which we stand to you ; every 
one has become aware what we are to you. Comp. Erasmus (‘‘quales simus 
erga Vos”). 

Ver. 7. That Paul meant by his év ravti ¢avepof. an advantageous manifes- 
tation, was obvious of itself ; comp. v. 11. Hence, in order now to make good 
a distinctive peculiar point of his ¢avépwouc, he continues with a question of 
bitter pain, such as tHe sense of being maliciously misunderstood brought to 
his lips: Or have I committed sin—abasing myself in order that ye might be ex- 
alted—that I gratuitously preached to you the gospel of God? No doubt the 
opponents had turned this noble sacrifice on his part, by way of reproach, 
into un-apostolic meanness. — éuavtdv tarexvdv] namely, by my renouncing, 
in order to teach gratuitously, my apostolic éfoveia, 1 Cor. ix., and content- 
ing myself with very scanty and mean support (comp. Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34). 
Chrysostom and others exaggerate it: év orevoywpia difyayov, for Kai borepybeic, 
ver. 8, is only a temporary increased degree of the rareivwou. —iva tyeic 
bpolyre] viz. from the lowness of the dark and lost pre-Christian condition 
through conversion, instruction, and pastoral care to the height of the 
Christian salvation. It is much too vague to take it of prosperity in general 
(Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt) ; and when Zachariae explains it : ‘‘in order 
to prefer you to other churches,” or when others think of the riches not les- 
sened by the gratuitous preaching (Mosheim, Heumann, Morus, Emmerling), 
they quite fail to see the apostle’s delicate way of significantly varying the 
relations. Comp. viii. 9. Chrysostom already saw the right meaning : 
parAOV Okodomovvto Kat ovK éoxavdadiCovto. — brz] that, belongs to ayuapr. éroinoa 
(to which éuavr. rarewoyv is an accompanying modal definition), inserted for 
the sake of disclosing the contrast of the case as it stood to the question. 
"Or. may also be taken as an exegesis of éwavt. rarecy. k.t.A., 80 that already 
with the latter the committing of sin would be described as regards its con- 
tents ; comp. Acts xxi. 18 ; Mark xi. 5 (so Luther, Beza, and many others, 
also Osiander). But our view interweaves more skilfully into one the ques- 
tion with its contradictory contents. — dwpeav| has the emphasis. — rod Geo0| 
Genitivus auctoris. Note the juxtaposition : dwpedv rd Tov Oeow evayy. : 
gratuitously the gospel of God (‘‘ pretiosissimum,” Bengel). (Q°) 

Ver. 8. Further information as to the previous dwpedy x.7.2. — éobanoa] I 
have stripped, plundered, a hyperbolical, impassioned expression, as is at once 
shown by AaBav dpdovov after it. The ungrateful ones are to be made aware, 
in a way to put them thoroughly to shame, of the forbearance shown to 
them. — The dAia éxxAyoiac meant were beyond doubt Macedonian. Comp. 


GHAR, XE. O. 647 


ver. 9. —-AaBodv x.7.2.] contemporaneous with éotAyoa, and indicating the 
manner in which it was done. —dydvov|] pay (see on Rom. vi. 23), @.e. 
payment for my official labour. — rpd¢ rv buoy dvaxoviav] Aim of the dAaag 
éxkA. éobAnjoa AaBov dy., So that the emphatic ivev corresponds to the emphat- 
ic dAAac. Paul had therefore destined the pay taken from other churches to 
the purpose of rendering (gratuitously) his official service to the Corinthians, 
to whom he travelled from Macedonia (Acts xvii. 13 f., xviii. 1) in order to 
preach to them the gospel. —xai rapov x.t.4.] and during my presence with 
you I have, even when want had set in with me, burdened no one. He thus brought 
with him to Corinth the money received from other churches, and subsisted 
on it (earning more, withal, by working with his hands) ; and when, during 
his residence there, this provision was gradually exhausted, so that even 
want set in (kal torepnGeic), he nevertheless importuned no one, but (ver. 9) 
continued to help himself on by Macedonian pecuniary aid (in addition to 
the earnings of his handicraft). Comp. on Phil. iv. 15. Riickert thinks 
that Paul only sought to relieve his want by the manual labour entered on 
with Aquila, when the money brought with him from Corinth had been ex- 
hausted and new contributions had not yet arrived. But, according to Acts 
Xvill. 3, his working at a handicraft—of which, moreover, he makes no mention 
in this passage—is to be conceived as continuing from the beginning of his 
residence at Corinth; howconceivable, nevertheless, isit that, occupied as he 
was so greatly with other matters, he could not earn his whole livelihood, but 
still stood in need of supplies! On xpidctipuac, which is not to be taken ‘‘ after 
my coming to you” (Hofmann), comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6 ; Matt. xiii. 56. — xare- 
vapknoa| Hesychius : éBdpuvva, I have lain asa burden on no one. It is to be 
derived from vdpxyn, paralysis, debility, torpidity ; thence vapkdw, torpeo, Il. 
Vill ozo ; Plat. Men. p. 80 A BC; LXX. Gen. xxxii. 32 ; Job xxxill. 19 ; 
hence xaravapkav tivo : to press down heavily and stiffly.on any one (on the 
genitive, see Matthiae, p.’860). Except in Hippocrates, p. 816 C, 1194 H, 
in the passive (to be stiffened), the word does not occur elsewhere in Greek ; 
and by Jerome, Aglas. 10, it is declared to be a Cilician expression equiva- 
lent to non gravavi vos. Vulgate : ‘‘nulli onerosus fui.” Another explana- 
tion, quoted in addition to the above by Theophylact (comp. Oecumenius) : 
““I have not become indolent in my office” (so Beza, who takes xara. . . 
ovdevoc, cum cujusguam incommodo), would be at variance with the context. 
See ver. 9. Comp. also xii. 18, 14. Besides, this sense would not be de- 
monstrable for catavaps. but for arovapx. (Plutarch, Hdic. p. 8 F). 

Ver. 9. 7d yap borépnua down to Makedoviac is not, with Griesbach, Lach- 
mann, and others, to be made parenthetical,’ since kai év ravri x.t.A. is 
structurally and logically (as consequence) connected with it : for ie was 
wanting to me the brethren (known to you) supplied, after they had come from 
Macedonia, and, etc. — xpocaverAfpwoar| addendo suppleverunt (comp. ix. 12). 
But we are not, with Grotius (who in ver. 8 and here thinks of the means 
for supporting the poor) and Bengel, to seek the reference of zpé¢ in the 


1 So also Ewald, who takes ver. 8 and ver. 9 still as a continuation of the question in 
ver. ‘7. 


648 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


addition to the earnings of his labour, for of this the whole context contains 
nothing ; but the brethren added the support brought by them to the apos- 
tle’s still very small provision, and so supplemented his torépyua. This aid 
is later than that mentioned in -Phil. iv. 15 (see in loc.) : the names of the 
brethren (were they Silas and Timothy ? Acts xviii. 5) are unknown to us. 
— kal év ravti x.7.2.] and in every point (comp. ver. 6) [ have kept and will keep 
myself non-burdensome to you ; I have occasioned you no burden in mine own 
person, and will occasion you none in the future (‘‘ tantum abest, ut poeni- 
teat,’ Bengel). — aBapfe only here in the N. T., but see Arist. de coel. 4 ; 
Chrysipp. in Plut. Mor. p. 1053 E ; Luc. D. M. x. 5. 

Ver. 10. Not in form an oath, but a very solemn assurance of the xai 
tnphow : there is truth of Christ in me, that, etc. That is to say : By the in- 
dwelling truth of Christ in me I assure you that, etc. The apostle is certain 
that as generally Christ lives in him (Gal. ii. 20) Christ’s mind is in him 
(see on 1 Cor. ii. 16), Christ’s heart beats in him (Phil. i. 8), Christ speaks 
in him (xiii. 3), all, namely, through the Spirit of Christ, which dwells in 
him (Rom. viii. 9 ff.); so, in particular, also truth of Christ is in him, and 
therefore all untruthfulness, lying, hypocrisy, etc., must be as foreign to 
him as to Christ Himself, who bears sway in him. The é7: is the simple 
that, dependent on the idea of asswrance, which lies at the bottom of the 
clause égorcv aa40. X. év éuoi, and has its specific expression in this clause. 
Comp. (6 éyo, ér4, Rom. xiv. 11. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 242 f. 
Riickert’s view is more far-fetched : that 6: «.7./. is the subject, of which Paul 
asserts that it is aA#@eva Xpiorod in him, i.e. what he says is a proposition, 
which just as certainly contains truth, as if Christ Himself said it. Olshausen 
attenuates the sense at variance with its literal tenor into: ‘‘as true as I am 
a Christian.” The thought is really the same in substance as that in Rom. 
ix. 1: aAgGevav Aéyw év XpioTG, ov Webdoua, but the form of the conception is 
different. — 7 xabynowc abrn ob opay. eic éué] this self-boasting will not be stopped 
in reference tome. The gloriatio spoken of, namely as to preaching gratui- 
tously, is personified ; its mouth is not, as to what concerns the apostle, to 
be stopped, so that it must keep silence. Hofmann, not appreciating this 
personification, takes offence at the fact that the xabyyouc is supposed to have 
a mouth, while Riickert resorts to an odd artificial interpretation of gpay. eic 
éué (will not be cooped up in me). Just because the kavyaoha is an action of 
the mouth, the personified xavynote has amouth which can be stopped. Comp. 
Theodoret. — ¢paygoera:] Comp. Rom. iii. 19 ; Heb. xi. 83; LXX. Ps. cvii, 
42; Job v. 16; 2 Macc. xiv. 36; Wetstein, ad Rom. l.c.; Jacobs, ad 
Anthol. XII. p. 297. It cannot surprise us that 7d oréua is not expressly sub- 
joined, since this is obvious of itself, seeing that the catyyovc is conceived as 
speaking. There is nothing in the context to justify the derivation of the 
expression from the damming up of running water, as Chrysostom and 
Theophylact, also Luther (see his gloss), and again Hofmann take it. 
There is just as little ground for de Wette’s suggestion, that ¢payfoeta is 
meant of hedging in a way (Hos. ii. 6). — ei¢ éué] For, if Paul should so con- 
duct himself that he could no longer boast of preaching gratuitously, the 
mouth of this caiyyoue would, in reference to him, be stopped. In this eig évé, 


OMAP. X39 115 12. | 649 


as concerns me, there is implied a tacit comparison with others, who con- 
ducted themselves differently, and in regard to whom, therefore, the mouth 
of kabynowce airy Would be stopped. — év roi¢ KAiuaor tHe ’Ay.| 18 More weighty, 
and at the same time more tenderly forbearing, than the direct é iyi, 
which would be wAy«ricorepov (Chrysostom). 

Ver. 11. Negative specification of the reason for his continuing to preach 
gratuitously in Achaia. — How easily, since he had accepted something 
from the poorer Macedonians, might his conduct appear or be represented 
to the Corinthians as the result of a cold, disdainful, distrustful disposition 
towards them! Love willingly accepts from the beloved one what is due 
to it. — 6 Oed¢ oidev| namely, that the reason is not want of love to you. — 
Observe the lively interrogative form (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. pp. 186, 347). 

Ver. 12.’ Positive specification of the reason, after brief repetition of the 
matter which calls for it (6 dé rolé, Kat rovfow). — Since Paul, in accordance 
with ver. 10, wishes to specify the aim inducing the future continuance of 
his conduct, «ai rowjow must be apodosis (comp. Erasmus, Annot., Beza, 
Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf), and must not be attached to the protasis, 
so as to make it necessary to supply before iva a did ToiTo rod (Erasmus, 
Paraphr., Luther, Castalio, Emmerling), or rotto roid Kk. roujow (Riickert, 
but undecidedly), or simply yiverac (Osiander, Ewald). — iva éxxdo x.7.A. | 
in order that I may cut off the opportunity of those, who wish (exoptant, Beza) 
opportunity, namely, to degrade and to slander me. Tyv agopyfv, having 
the article, denotes the definite occasion, arising from the subject in ques- 
tion, for bringing the apostle into evil repute. Had he caused himself to 
be remunerated by the Corinthians, his enemies, who in general were looking 
out for opportunity (agopu. without the article), would have taken thence 
the opportunity of slandering him as selfish and greedy ; this was their 
adopuh, Which he wished to cut off (avapeiv, Chrysostom) by his gratuitous 
working. Others understand by rj agopufv the occasion of exalting and 
magnifying themselves above him (Calvin, Grotius, Flatt). But according 
to this, we should have to assume that the false apostles had taken no pay, 
on which point, after the precedent of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, 
Grotius, Billroth, and others, Rickert especially insists. This assumption, 
however, which Neander also supports (comp. against it, Beza), has against 
it @ priori the fact that Paul lays so earnest stress on his gratuitous preach- 
ing—which would not be appropriate to his apologetico-polemic train of ar- 

_gument, if on this point he had stood on the same footing with his oppo- 
nents. Further, xi. 20 and 1 Cor. ix. 12 are expressly opposed to it ; and 
the objection of Riickert, that the apostle’s testimony to the baseness of his 
opponents loses much of its force owing to his passionate temperament, is 
an exaggerated opinion, to which we can concede only this much, that his 
testimony regarding his opponents is strongly expressed (comp. ver. 20), 
but not that it contains anything untrue. If they had worked against him 
from honest prejudice, it would have been at once indiscreet and un-Chris- 
tian in him to work against them. Riickert’s further objection, that the 


1 See regarding ver. 12, Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Avit. 1865, p. 517 ff. 
: 


650 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

adversaries, if they had taken payment where Paul took none, would have 
coupled folly with selfishness, is unfounded, seeing that in fact, even with 
that recommendation in which Paul had the advantage of them by his un- 
paid teaching, very many other ways were left to them of exalting them- 
selves and of lowering his repute, and hence they might be all the more 
prudent and cunning. Comp. on ver. 6. — iva é @ xavyévra x.t.4.] may be 
parallel to the previous clause of purpose (Diisterdieck). Yet it is more in 
keeping with the logical relation—that here something positive, and pre- 
viously only something negative, is asserted as intended—and thereby with 
the climactic course of the passage, to assume that iva év @ xavy. «.7.A. is the 
aim of éxxépo tyv agopunv tr. 0. ad., and thus the jinal aim of the 6 dé zo.d, 
kai Touow in regard to the opponents: in order that they, in the point of 
which they boast, may be found even as we. This is what I purpose to bring 
about among them. If, namely, the enemies did not find in Paul the op- 
portunity of disparaging him as selfish, now there was to be given to them 
withal the necessity (according to his purpose) of showing themselves to be ~ 
just such as Paul’ in that, in which they boasted, 7.e. according to the context, 
in the point of unselfishness. Hitherto, forsooth, the credit of unselfishness, 
which they assigned to themselves, was idle ostentation, see ver. 20. De 
Wette makes objection, on the other hand, that, they could not have boasted 
of unselfishness, if they had shown themselves selfish. But this was the 
very point of his enemies’ untruthfulness (ver. 18, comp. v. 12), that they 
vaingloriously displayed the semblance of unselfishness, while in fact they 
knew how to enrich themselves by the Christians. Theodoret aptly says : 
édetse 0& avtodvs Adyw KouTdlovtac, AaOpa d& yopnuaTteCouévove. NDiister- 
dieck, too, can find no ground in the context for saying either that the op- 
ponents had reproached the apostle with selfishness, or had given themselves 
out for unselfish. But the former is not implied in our explanation (they 
only sought the occasion for that charge), while the latter is sufficiently im- 
plied in ver. 20. The expositors who consider the opponents as labouring 
gratuitously understand év @ kavyovra of this unpaid working, of which they 
had boasted, so that Paul in this view would say : in order that they, in this 
point of which they boast, may be found not better than we. See Oecumenius, 
Erasmus, Calvin, comp. Billroth and Riickert ; Billroth and others (comp. 
Diisterdieck above) taking withal the second iva as parallel to the first, 
which Riickert also admits. But against the hypothesis that the opponents 
had taught gratuitously, see above. And the not better than we arbitrarily 
changes the positive expression xafo¢ jueic into the negative. Lastly, this 
explanation stands in no logical connection with what follows. See on ver. 
13. Following Augustine, de serm. Dom. in monte, ii. 16, Cajetanus and 
Estius regard iva. . . queic as an exposition of dg¢opysy : occasion, in order to 


1 Beza well gives the substantial mean- 
ing: “Isti quidem omnem mei calumniandi 
occasionem captant, expectantes dum po- 
eniteat me juri meo renuntiantem in prae- 
dicando evangelio ex manuum mearum 
labore victitare. At ego nunquam patiar 


hane laudem (qua ipsos refello) mihi in 
Achaiae ecclesiis praeripi. Imo in hoc in- — 
stituto pergam, ut et ipsos ad exemplum 
meum imitandum provocem, nedum ut 
quam captant occasionem inveniant.”’ 


CHAP. XI., 12. 651 
be found as we, and év @ xavy. as parenthetical : in quo, se. in eo quod est 
inveniri sicut et nos, gloriantur. Comp. also Bengel. But the opponents 
did not, in fact, boast of being like Paul, but of being more than he was 
(ver. 5), and wished to hold him or to have him held as not at all a true 
apostle, ver. 4. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who, attaching the 
second iva to ddopufv, and referring? év ¢ cavyovra to the apostleship of 
which the opponents boasted, finds Paul’s meaning to be this : maintaining 
in its integrity the gratuitous character of his working, he takes away from 
those, who would fain find ways and means of making their pretended apostle- 
ship appear equal to his genuine one, the possibility of effecting their purpose. 
But in the connection of the text, év ¢ xavyovra on the one side and kad 
kab jueic On the other can only denote one and the same quality, namely, the 
unselfishness, of which the opponents untruly boasted, while Paul had it in 
truth and verified it. Olshausen has been led farthest astray by taking the 
second iva as the wish of the opponents ; he imagines that they had been 
annoyed at Paul’s occupying a position of strictness which put them ‘so 
much to shame, and hence they had wished to bring him away from it, in 
order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be found even 
as they. And the éy ¢ «avy. is to be taken, as if they had put forward the 
authority to take money as an object of glorying, as an apostolic preroga- 
tive (1 Cor. ix. 7 ff.) ; so that the whole passage has therefore the ironical 
meaning : ‘‘ Much as they are opposed to me, they still wish an opportunity of 
letting me take a share of their credit, that I may allow myself to be supported 
as an apostle by the churches ; but with this they wish only to hide their shame 
and rob me of my true credit: in this they shall not succeed!” But that the 
opponents had put forward the warrant to take money as an apostolic pre- 
rogative, is not to be inferred from 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff., where Paul, in fact, 
speaks only of the right of the teacher to take pay. Further, there is no 
ground in the context for the assumed reference of év 6 xavy.; and lastly, 
in keeping with the alleged ironical meaning, Paul must have written : 
evpelOuev Kafoc Kai abtoi, which Olshausen doubtless felt himself, when he 
wrote : ‘‘in order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be 
found such as they.” — On éxxérrevy, in the ethical sense of bringing to nought, 
comp. LXX. Job xix. 10; 4 Mace. iii. 2 ff.; Plat. Charm. p. 155 C; 
Polyb. xx. 6. 2. The opposite : rapéyerv adopuqv (Biihr, ad Pyrrh. p. 237). 
—On the double iva, the second introducing the aim of the first clause of 
aim, comp. Eph. v. 27; John i. 7. Hofmann, without reason, desires 
ézo¢ in place of the second iva. 


1 De Wette and Diisterdieck also refer év 
@ kavxavta. to the apostolic working and 


cerned the gratuitous nature of his labouring 
(ver. 10, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 15), so also the 


dignity. According to the latter, the mean- 
ing would be: in order that they, as regards 
unselfishness, may let themselves be found just 
such as I, the apostle vilified by them, and may 
in this way show what is the worth of their 
boastful claim to apostolic dignity. Even this 
clear interpretation does not remove the 
difficulty that, as the kavxyors of Paul con- 


kavxacdat ascribed in the immediate context 
to the opponents, and pointing back by 
Kkadws Kai nuets to the apostle’s conduct 
(which was the subject-matter of his boast- 


ing), requires no other object, nay, when we 


strictly adhere to the immediate connec- 
tion, admits of no other. 


652 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

Ver. 18. Justification of the aforesaid iva év 6 cavydvrat, ebped. kabdc Kk. hueic. 
‘‘Not without ground do I intend that they shall, in that of which they 
boast, be found to be as we ; for the part, which these men play, is lying 
and deceit.”” — Those who take -ka@a¢ x. 7ueic in ver. 12 : not better than we, 
must forcibly procure a connection by arbitrarily supplying something ; 
as e.g. Riickert : that in the heart of the apostle not better than we had the 
meaning : but rather worse, and that this is now illustrated. Hofmann, in 
consequence of his view of iva év @ xavy. x.t.A. ver. 12, interpolates the 
thought : ‘‘ for the rest” they have understood how to demean themselves 
as Christ’s messengers. — oi yap tovotto x.t.d. | for people of that kind are false 
apostles, etc., so that wWevdardorora is the predicate.’ So also de Wette and 
Ewald. Usually, after the Vulgate (also Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Hofmann), 
wevdaréoroao is made the subject: ‘‘ for such false apostles are,” etc. But it 
should, in fact, be rather put : ‘‘ for the false apostles of that kind (in dis- 
tinction from other false apostles, comp. xii. 83; Soph. O. &. 674 ; Polyb. 
vill. 2, 5, xvi. 11, 2) are,” etc.,which would be quite appropriate. Besides, 
the wevdardéoroAo, disclosing entirely at length the character of the enemies, 
would lose its emphasis. On the contemptuous sense of rovottog, comp. 
Ellendt, Lev. Soph. Il. p. 848. — épydrae déAcoc] comp. Phil. 11. 2. They 
were workers, in so far certainly as they by teaching and other activity were 
at work in the church ; but they were deceitful workers (dealt in dodriae Bov- 
Aaic, Eur. Med. 413, doriou éxéeooww, Hom. 1x. 282, and dodiare réyvaior, Pind. 
Nem. iv. 98), since they wished only to appear to further the true Christian 
salvation of the church, while at bottom they pursued their own selfish and 
passionate aims (ver. 20). For the opposite of an épyarye dé/10c, see 2 Tim. 
ii. 15. — petacyquaril. eic artoor. X.| transforming themselves into apostles of 
Christ. Their essential form is not that of apostles of Christ, for they are 
servants of Satan ; in order to appear as the former, they thus assume 
another form than they really have, present themselves otherwise than they 
really are. In workingagainst Paul in doctrine and act, they hypocritically 
assumed the mask of apostle, though they were the opposite of a true apos- 
tle. (Galei-l Roms xv 18 ikea Gor yale o: 

Vv. 14,15. And that is quite natural !— kai ob @aiua] neque res admiranda 
est. Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 498 D; Hpin. p. 988 D ; Pind. Wem. x. 95, 
Pyth. i. 50 ; Eur. Hipp. 489; Soph. Oed. R. 1182, Phil. 408 ; Pflugk, ad 
Hur, Hee. 976. — What follows is an argumentum a majori ad minus. — 
aitéc] tpse Satanas, their Lord and master. Comp. afterwards oj didxovor 
airov. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 7383. — ei¢ dyyedov guréc] into an angel of 
light. As the nature of God (1 John i. 5; Rev. xxi. 238, 24), and His 
dwelling-place (1 Tim. vi. 16 ; 1 John i. 7) is light, a glory of light, a dd&a 
beaming with light, which corresponds to the most perfect holy purity, so 


1Bengel says aptly: ‘‘Haec jam pars 
praedicati, antitheton, ver. 5. Nunc tandem 
scapham scapham qdicit.” On the idea of 
wevdandoroAcn, Erasmus rightly remarks: 
** Apostolus enim ejus agit negotium a quo 
missus est, isti suis commodis serviunt.”’ 


Without doubtthe people maintained for 
themselves their claim with equal, nay, 
with better right than Paul, to the name 
of apostle, which they probably conceded to 
Paul only in the wider sense (Acts xiv. 4, 
141° CoOr, x¥. 0: 


OTA Rs FX 915016. 653 


also His servants, the good angels, are natures of light with bodies of light (1 
Cor. xv. 40) ; hence, where they appear, light beams forth from them (Matt. 
Xxviii. 3, al.; Acts xii. 7, al.; see Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 274 f.; Weiss, 
bibl. Theol. p. 460). Regarding Satan, on the other hand, comp. Eph. vi. 
12 ; Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i313. He is 6 kanpovduoc tov oxétrove, Ev. Nic. 20. 
_— There is no trace in the narratives concerned to justify the assumption + 
that ver. 15 points to the fall of man (Bengel, Semler, Hengstenberg, 
Christol. I. p. 11), or even to the temptation of Christ, Matt. iv. 8, in which 
the devil appeared as the angel to whom God had entrusted the rule of 
Palestine (Michaelis) ; but, at any rate, it is the apostle’s thought, and is 
also presupposed as known to the readers, that devilish temptations in 
angelic form assailman. In the O. T. this idea is not found ; it recurs 
later, however, in the Rabbins, who, with an eccentric application of the 
thought, maintained that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 
34 ; Hos. xii. 4, 5) was the devil. See Hisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 
845. For conceptions regarding the demons analogous to our passage from 
Porphyry and Jamblichus, see Grotius and Elsner, Odss. p. 160. (R°) 

Ver. 15. It is not a great matter, therefore, not strange and extraordinary, 
“4, etc. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; Plato, Hipp. maj. p. 287 A, Menez. p. 235D ; 
Herod. vii. 38. —xai] if, ashe does himself, his servants also transform them- 
selves, namely, as servants of righteousness, ¢.e. as people who are appointed 
for, and active in, furthering the righteousness by faith. Comp. on iii. 
9. The dixaocivy, the opposite of dvoyia, but in a specifically Christian 
and especially Pauline sense (comp. on vi. 14) asthe condition of the king- 
dom of God, is naturally that which Satan and his servants seek to counter- 
act. When the latter, however, demean themselves as aréoroi0: Xpictov, the 
dixatoobvy, Which they pretend to serve, must have the semblance of the right- 
eousness of faith, although it is not so in reality. This view is therefore not 
“*out of the way” (Klépper, p. 90), but contextual ; and the dicaootvy cannot 
be the righteousness of the daw, the preaching of which is not the mark of 
the arécroAo: Xpicrov. As to d¢ (transform themselves and become as), comp. 
on Rom. ix. 29. — dv r6 réAog x.7.4.| of whom—the servants of Satan—the end, 
Jinal fate, will be in accordance with their works. (s°) Comp. Phil. iii. 19 ; 
Rom. vi. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 17. ‘‘ Quacunque specie se nunc efferant, detrahi- 
tur tandem schema,” Bengel. 

Ver. 16. Lrepeat it: let noone hold me for irrational ; but if not, receive me 
at least as one irrational (do not reject me), in order that I too (like my oppo- 
~nents) may boast a little.- Thus Paul, after having ended the outpouring of 
his heart begun in ver. 7 regarding his gratuitous labours, and after the 
warning characterization of his opponents thereby occasioned (vv.13—15), 
now turns back to what he had said in ver. 1, in order to begin a new self- 
comparison with his enemies, which he, however, merely introduces—and that 
once more with irony, at first calm, then growing bitter—down to ver. 21, 


1The present would not be againstit. See . then but is not preserved in our present O. 
Bengel: ‘‘Solet se transformare ; fecit jam T., to which Paul alludes, or of a narrative 
in paradiso.’’ According to Ewald, we are similar to that in Matt. iv. 1-11. 

to think of a narrative, which was known 


654 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


and only really begins with év @ 0 av tte ToAua x.7.A. at ver. 21. — That, which 
is by radaw Aéyo designated as already said once (ver. 1), is nA tic we O6Ey adp. 
elva and ei 08 -uh ye . . . Kavyhowua, both together, not the latter alone (Hof- 
mann). The former, namely, lay ¢mplicite in the ironical character of ver. 
1,rand the latter explicite in the words of that ‘verse. (7°) — ei dé ph ye] sed 
nisi quidem. Regarding the legitimacy of the ye in Greek (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 
425 E), see Bremi, ad Aesch. de fals. leg. 47 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 527; Din- 
dorf, ad Dem. I. p. v. f. praef. After negative clauses ei 68 pf follows even 
in classical writers (Thue. 1. 28. 1, 131. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 6, vii. 1. 8), 
although we should expect «i dé But ei 68 wf presupposes in the author the 
conception of a positive form of what is negatively expressed. Here some- 
thing like this : I wish that no one should hold me as foolish ; if, however, 
you do not grant what I wish, etc. See in general, Heindorf, ad Plat. Parm. 
p. 208 ; Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 106; Hartung, Partik. Il. p. 218 ; and 
in reference to the N. T., Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 554 f. — nav] certe, is to be 
explained elliptically : déac0é we, kai éav dc dppova déEnobé pe. Comp. Mark v1. 
56; Acts v. 15. See Wiistemann, ad Theocr. xxiil. 35 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
XI. p. 816 ; Winer, p. 543 [E. T. 729]. — 6c ddpova] in the quality of one irra- 
tional, as people give an indulgent hearing to such a one. — pixpéy tc] accu- 
cative as in ver. 1: aliquantulum, may deal in a little bit of boasting. 

Ver. 17. More precise information as to the kav o¢ ddpova.—d 2aro]) 
namely, in the boastful speech now introduced and regarded thereby as 
already begun. — xara kbpiov| according to the Lord (comp. Rom. xv. 5, vill. 
27), te. so that Tam determined in this case by the guiding impulse of Christ. 
A speaking according to Christ cannot be boasting ; Matt. xi. 29; Luke 
xvii. 10. Now as Paul knew that the kara kbpiov Aadeiv was brought about 
by the aveiua working in him (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, xxv. 40), ob AaAo Kara 
xipiov certainly denies the theopneustic character of the utterance in the 
stricter sense, (u°) without, however, the apostle laying aside the conscious- 
ness of the Spirit’s guidance, under which he, for his purpose, allows the 
human emotion temporarily to speak. It is similar when he expresses /is 
own opinion, while yet he is conscious withal of having the Spirit (1 Cor. vil. 
12, 25, 40). Regarding the express remark, that he does not speak kara kipzov 
x.t.A., Bengel aptly says: ‘‘quin etiam hunc locum et propriam huic loco 
exceptionem sic perscripsit ex regula decori divint, a Domino. instructus.” — 
GAn’ O¢ év adpoobyy| but as one speaks in the state of rationality. — év tabr. T. 
boot. T. x.| belongs to ov AAG Kata Kbplov, G22 O¢ év agpoo. taken together a 
not according to the Lord, but as a fool do I speak it, with this confidence of 
boasting. ‘xécraoic is here interpreted as diffcrently as in ix. 4. According 
to Chrysostom, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann, and many others : in this swbject- 
matter of boasting (comp. Luther, Billroth, and de Wette: ‘‘ since it has 
once come to boasting’). But what little meaning this would have ! and 
how scant justice is thus done to the ratty prefixed so emphatically (with 
this so great confidence) ! The boasting is indeed not yet actually begun (as 
de Wette objects), but the apostle is already occupied with it in thought ; 
comp. previously Aare. According to Hofmann, év ratr. t. in. 7. «. is to be 
attached to the following protasis érel roAAol x.t.A. But apart from the 


~~ 


CHAP. XI., 18—20. 655 


uncalled-for inversion thus assumed, as well as from the fact that the irécracic 
7. x. is held to be specially the apostleship, the ri¢ cavyfoewe Would be a quite 
superfluous addition ; on the other hand, with the reference to the general 
2a26 as modal definition of irécracic it is quite appropriate. 

Ver. 18. That which carries him away to such foolishness, ver. 16 : iva 
KayO pikp. Te Kavyno. — Seeing that many boast according to their flesh, so will I 
boast too, namely, xara r. cdpxa.—Since xara tiv odpxa is cpposed to the card 
koptov in ver. 17, and is parallel to the dc év adpoctryy, it cannot express the 
objective norm (comp. v. 16), or the object of the boasting (comp. Phil. iil. 8 
ff.; Gal. vi. 13), as Chrysostom and most expositors, including Emmerling, 
Flatt, and Osiander, explain it: on account of external advantages,’ but it 
must denote the subjective manner of the cavyaoa, namely : so that the cav- 
xacba is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but proceeds according to the standard 
of their natural condition as material, pyschically determined, and striving 
against the Divine Spirit, whence they are urged on to conceit, pride, ambi- 
tion, etc.? Comp. Riickert,: ‘‘ according to the impulse of self-seeking per- 
sonality ;” also de Wette, Ewald, Neander. Billroth, in accordance with 
his philosophy, takes it : ‘‘as individual, according to what one is as a sin- 
gle human being.” «até dvOperov in 1 Cor. ix. 8 is not parallel. See on 
that passage. — Riickert denies that Paul after kayo xavyfooua has again 
supplied in thought «ard r. capxa, and thinks that he has prudently put it 
only in the protasis and not said it of his own glorying. But it necessarily 
follows, as well from the previous ov AaA6 Kata Kbpcov, in Which the kara 7. 
capKa is already expressed implicite, as also from the following rév adpdver, 
among whom Paul is included as card tiv capa Kavydpevoc. (V°) It is other- 
wise in John viii. 15. | 

Ver. 19. Not the motive inducing, but an ironical ground encouraging, 
the just said kayo xavyfooua : For willingly you are patient with the irra- 
tional (to whom I with my xavyaota: belong), since ye are rational people ! 
The more rational person is on that account the more tolerant toward fools. 
Hence not : although you are rational (Ewald and the older commentators). 

Ver. 20. Argumentum a majori for what is said in ver. 19, bitterly sarcas- 


1 To this category belongs also the inter- 
pretation of Baur, who, however, refers 
odpé quite specially to Judaism as what is 
inherited, and therefore understands a 
boasting, the object of which is only inherited 
accidental advantages. The Svaxovor Xpuiotod, 
ver. 23, and the apostle’s subsequent glory- 
ing in suffering, ought to have dissuaded 
Baur from adopting such a view. 

2 Osiander is quite wrong in objecting to 
this interpretation that the article is against 
it, since Paul, when he means capé in this 
sense, never puts the article after «ara. 
Paul, in fact, has the article only in this 
single passage, and elsewhere writes always 
kata oapxa (i.e. conformably to flesh) whether 
he uses cdpé in the subjective or objective 
sense ; hence, so far as the article is con- 


cerned, there is no means at all of compari- 
son. Besides, 7jv here is very doubtful 
critically, because it is wanting in D* F 
G &* min. Chrys. Dam., and is at variance 
with the Pauline usage. Osiander’s further 
objection, that cata Thv capxa, as understood 
by us, is in the apostle’s mouth unworthy of 
him for the apodosis, is likewise incorrect, 
for he is speaking ironically ; he wishes, in 
fact, to deal in boasting like a,fool/ As to 
the distinction between kata capka and Kata 
Thv gapKka, We may add that the one means: 
“after the manner of natural humanity,” the 
other, “after the manner of ¢heir natural 
humanity.’? Comp. on Phil. i. 24; 22. In 
substance they are equivalent; the latter 
only individualizes more concretely. 


656 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tic against the complaisance of the Corinthians towards the imperious (xara- 
dovaoi), covetous (kareobis:), slyly capturing (AauBdver), arrogant (éralperai), 
and audaciously violent (cig rpécwrov déper) conduct of the false apostles. — 
xatadovaoi] enslaves. Comp. on-Gal. i. 4 ; Dem. 249. 2, and the passages 
in Wetstein. Paul has used the active, not the middle, as he leaves quite 
out of view the authority, whose lordship was aimed at ; beyond doubt, 
however (see the following points), the pseudo-apostles wished to make them- 
selves lords of the church, partly in religious, 7.e. Judaistic effort (comp. i. 
24), partly also in a material respect (see what follows). —xareofier] swallows 
up, devours, sc. jude, a figurative way of denoting not the depriving them of 
independence in a Christian point of view (Hofmann), which the reader could 
the less guess, since it was already said in xaradovd., but the course of greed- 
ily gathering to themselves all their property. Comp. Ps. liil. 5 ; Matt. xxiii, 
13; Luke xv. 30; Add. to Esth. i.11; Hom. Od. iii. 315 : yf ro xara 
ravra ddywot kthuata, Dem, 992. 25; Aesch. c. Zim. 96. So also the Latin 
devorare (Quintil. viii. 6). Comp. also Jacobs, ad. Anthol. X. pp. 217, 230. 
Riickert, who will not concede the avarice of the opponents (see on ver. 
12), explains it of rending the church into parties. Quite against the mean- 
ing of the word ; for in Gal. v. 15 a2A#A0ve stands alongside. And would 
it not be wonderful, if in sweh a company of worthlessness avarice were 
wanting ?— AauBdver] sce. buac, captures you. Comp. xii. 16. The figure is 
taken from hunting, and denotes the getting of somebody into one’s power 
(Dem. 115. 10, 239. 17) in a secret way, by machinations, etc. (hence differ- 
ent from xatadovioi). Comp. Reiske, Ind. Dem., ed. Schaef. p. 322: ‘‘ de- 
vincire sibi mentes hominum deditas et veluti captas aut fascino quodam 
obstrictas.”” This meaning is held by Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt, Billroth, 
Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, and others. The wswal older interpretation : 
if any one takes your goods from you (so also Ewald), is to be set aside, be- 
cause iuac would necessarily have to be supplied, and because already the 
far stronger xareofier has preceded. The same is the case with Hofmann’s 
interpretation : if any one seizes hold on you (‘‘ treats you as a thing”), which 
after the two previous points would be nothing distinctive. — éraipera] ex- 
alts himself (proudly). See the passages in Wetstein. As in this clause 
iuac cannot be again supplied, and thus the supplying of it is interrupted, 
bude is again added in the following clause. — ei¢ rpéowr. dépec] represents an 
extraordinary, very disgraceful and insolent maltreatment. Comp. 1 Kings 
xxii. 24 ; Matt. v. 39 ; Luke xxii. 64; Acts xxiii. 2 ; Philostr. oi¢. Apoll. 
vii. 23. On the impetuous fivefold repetition of et, comp. 1 Tim. v. 10. 
Ver. 21. Ina disgraceful way (for me) I say, that we have been weak ! Tron- 
ical comparison of himself with the false apostles, who, according to ver. 
20, had shown such energetic bravery in Corinth. For such things we, I 
confess it to my shame, were too weak !— xara atiiay] is the generally cur- 
rent paraphrase of the adyerb (driuwc), to be explained from the notion of 
measure (Bernhardy, p. 241). See Matthiae, p. 1859 f.—é¢ br] as that 
(see in general, Bast, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 52) introduces the contents of the 
shameful confession, not, however, in an absolutely objective way, but as a 
fact conceived of (oc), Comp, 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Xen. Hist. iii. 2. 14 ; and the ~ 


CHAP, KI., 21. 657 


passages from Joseph. ¢. Ap. i. 11, and Dionys. Hal. 9 (ériyvod¢, wg bre éoyd- 
rote elolv oi KatakAeiobévtec) in Kypke, I. p. 268; also Isocr. Busir. arg. p. 
362, Lang.: xatyydpovv abtov, oc bre kaa dayudvia eicdéper, and the causal we 
ort, v. 19. The confession acquires by é¢ dre something of hesitancy, which 
strengthens the touch of irony. —jueic] is with great emphasis opposed to 
the men of power mentioned in ver. 20. — jobevqoauev| namely, when we 
were there ; hence the aorist. On the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 2. — 
There agree, on the whole, with our view of the passage Bengel, Zachariae, 
Storr, Flatt, Schrader, de Wette, Neander, Osiander, and others. The main 
point in it is, that car’ ariuiay denotes something shameful jor the apostle, 
_and Aéyw has a prospective reference. Riickert also gives Aéyw a prospective . 
reference, but he diverges in regard to kar’ ariiav, and supplies pév : ‘in 
the point, indeed, to bring disgrace upon you, I must acknowledge that I have 
been weak.” But in that case how unintelligibly would Paul have expressed 
himself ! For, apart from the arbitrary supplying of pév, the definite aripiay 
would be quite unsuitable. Paul, to be understood, must have written xara 
THY atiyiav budv (as regards your disgrace), or at least, with reference to ver. 
20, xara tH ariiay (as regards the disgrace under consideration). Ewald 
and Hofmann take xara atm. rightly, but give Aéyo a retrospective reference. 
In their view of d¢ 67: they diverge from one another, Ewald explaining it : 
as if I from paternal weakness could not have chastised you myself ;, Hofmann, 
on the other hand, taking dc érz as specifying the reason for saying such a 
thing (comp. v. 19). Against Ewald it may be urged that oc dr does not 
mean as 77, and that the five points previously mentioned are not brought 
under the general notion of chastisement ; and against both expositors, it 
may be urged that if card atiuiav were in reference to what precedes to mean 
a dishonour of the apostle himself, juov rust of necessity (in Phil. iv, 11, 
cata is different) have been appended in order to be understood, because 
the previous points were a shame of the readers ; consequently the fine point 
would have lain just in an emphatically added judy (such as kata THv judy 
atysiav). In our interpretation, on the other hand, card ariuiav receives its 
definite reference through 6c 6ére jyeic (that we), anda judov with arwiav 
would have been quite superfluous. Most of the older commentators, too, 
though with many variations in detail, refer card dri. 2éyo to what precedes, 
but explain xara ari. of the shame of the readers. So Chrysostom,’ Theophy- 
lact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Hunnius, and others = to: 
your shame I say this (ver. 20), as if [rather : as because] we had been weak, 
and could not have done the same thing, although we could do it but would: 
not. Similarly also Billroth (followed by Olshausen) : Jn a disgraceful way, 
I maintain, you put up with that injustice from the alleged reason that we are 
weak” (rather : had been). But since cara atiy. is not more precisely defined by 
a ivav, we have no right to give to it another definition than it has already 
received from Paul by the emphatic jueic jofevgc. Against the retrospective 
reference of Aéyw, see above. Finally, in that view the passage would lose: 


1 Chrysostom observes that ws drt x.7.A. is unpleasantness of the meaning by the ob- 
given obscurely, in order to conceal the scurity. 


658 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


its ironical character, which however still continues, as is shown at once by 
the following év adpootvy Aéyo. — iv OS dv tic ToAua K.t.A2.| Contrast with 
the ironical jofevicauev : wherein, however, any one is bold—TI say it irration- 
ally—tI too am bold ; in whatever respect (quocunque nomine) any one pos- 
sesses boldness, I too have boldness. In év @ lies the real ground, in which 
the roAuav has its causal basis. As to roAwa, comp. on x. 2. dv contains the 
conception : should the case occur. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 35. — év agpo- 
civy Aéyw| Lrony ; for pq tic pe d6&y adpova eiva, ver. 16. But Paul knew 
that the roAué cay would appear to the enemies to be a foolish assertion. 

~ Ver. 22. Now comes the specializing elucidation of that év © 0 dv tee ToAua, 
toAue Kayo, presented so as directly to confront his enemies. Comp. Phil. 
iii. 5. Observe, however, that the opponents in Corinth must have still left 
circumcision out of the dispute.—The three names of honour, in which they 
boasted from their Judaistic point of view, are arranged in a climaz, so 
that ‘EBpaio, which is not here in contrast to the Jews of the Diaspora, 
points to the hallowed nationality, "Iopandira to the theocracy (Rom. ix. 4 f.), 
and orépua ’ABpadu to the Messianic privilege (Rom. xi. 1, ix. 7, al.), with- 
out, however, these references excluding one another. The ¢énterrogative 
interpretation of the three points corresponds:to the animation of the passage 
far more than the affirmative (Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Estius, Flatt, and 
others). 

Ver. 23. In the case of those three Jewish predicates the aim was reached 
and the emotion appeased by the brief and pointed xéyé. Now, however, 
he comes to the main point, to the relation towards Christ ; here cay cannot 
again suffice, but a irép éyé must come in (comp. Theodoret), and the holy 
self-confidence of this izép éyé gushes forth like a stream (comp. vi. 4 ff.) 
over his opponents, to tear down their fancies of apostolic dignity. — rapa- 
dpovov Aaa@| also ironical, but stronger than év da@poo. Aéyw : in madness 
(Herod. ili. 24; Dem. 1183. 1; Soph. Phil. 804) I speak! For Paul, in 
the consciousness of his own humility as of the hateful arrogance of his foes, 
conceives to himself a: rapadpovei ! as the judgment which will be pro- 
nounced by the opponents upon his izép éyé ; they will call it a rapadpov 
éxoc (Eur. Hipp. 232) !—irép tyé] He thus concedes to his opponents the 
predicate dvdxovoe Xpiorod only apparently (as he in fact could not really do so 
according to vv. 138-15) ; for in irép éyé there lies the cancelling of the 
apparent concession, because, if he had granted them to be actually Christ’s 
servants, it would have been absurd so say : Tam more! Such, however, 
is the thought : ‘‘ servants of Christ are they ? Well, if they are such, still 
moreamIl!” The meaning of irép éyé is not, as most (even Osiander and 
Hofmann) assume : I am a servant of Christ in a higher degree than they” 
(1 Cor. xv. 10), but : Lam more than servant of Christ ; for, as in kayo there 
lay the meaning : J am the same (not in reference to the degree, but to the 
Jact), so must there be in irép éyé the meaning: I am something more. 
Thus, too, the meaning, in accordance with the strong zapadgpovav 2a2é, 


©) 
appears far more forcible and more telling against the opponents.’ irép is 


1So0 that the absolute imép is not to be explained trép airovs, but imép Siaxdvovs X. 


CHAP. XI., 24, 25. | 659 


used adverbially (Winer, p. 394 [E. T. 526]) ; but other undoubted Greek 
examples of this use of izép are not found, as that in Soph. Ant. 514 (6 0 
avtiotac trép) is of doubtful explanation. — év xérowe Tepicootépwc x.7.A.] Paul 
now exchanging sarcasm for deep earnest, under the impulse of a noble 
_ peyadnyopia (Xen. Apol. i. 2) and ‘‘argumentis quae vere testentur pectus 
apostolicum” (Erasmus), begins his justification of the imép éyd, so that év is 
- to be taken instrumentally : through more exertions, etc. The comparative is 
to be explained from the comparison with the xéza of the opponents. The 
adverb, however, as often also in classic writers, is attached adjectivally (se. 
ovo.) to the substantive. So also de Wette.’ Comp. Luke xxiv. 1; 1 Cor. 
xiyot; Phil) i. 26; Gal. 1.13; see Ast, ad Plat. Polit. p. 871 f. ; Bern- 
hardy, p. 338. Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, and the older commentators 
incorrectly hold that ciui is to be supplied : ‘‘I am so in a yet much more 
extraordinary way in labours.” Apart from the erroneous explanation of 
irép ey, Which is herein assumed, the subsequent roAAdkc is against it, for 
this with eivi supplied would be absurd. Hofmann would makea new 
series begin with év favar. roAAdxic ; but this is just a mere makeshift, 
which is at variance with the symmetrical onward flow of the passage with 
év. Beza, Flatt, and many others supply 7» or yéyova ; but this is forbidden 
by ver. 26, where (after the parenthesis of vv. 24, 25) the passage is con- 
tinued without év, so that it would be impossible to supply 7 or yéyova 
further. — év rany. trepBarr.| by strokes endured beyond measure, — év dvdax. 
meptaoot. | by more imprisonments. Clement, ad Cor. i. 5 : 6 HaivAoc tropovie 
BpaBeiov aréoyev ExtadKr¢ dSeoud gopéoac, in which reckoning, however, the 
later imprisonments (in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome) are included. — év @ava- 
Tog TOAAaKLC| TOAAAKIC yap Eic Kivdbvove wapEddbnv Oavatov éyovtac, Chrysostom. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 11; Rom. viii. 36; and Philo, Flac. p. 
990 A: mpoaroPvackw roAAove Savdroue irouévwv av? Evde Tov TeAevtaiov, Lucian, 
Tyr. 22 ; Asin. 23. See on this use of Sdvaroc in the plural, Stallbaum, ad 
Plat. Crit. p. 46 C ; Seidler, ad Hur. El. 479. 

Vy. 24, 25. Parenthesis, in which definite proofs are brought forward for 
the év davarore roAddkic. — brd ’Lovdaiwr] refers merely to wevrdnic . . . éAaBov ; 
for it is obvious of itself that the subsequent rpic éppaBdicSnv was a Gentile 
maltreatment. Paul seems to have had in his mind the order : from Jews 
. . . from Gentiles, which, however, he then abandoned. — reacapdnovra rapa 
piav| 8c. wAnyac. Comp. on Luke xii. 47, and Ast, ad Legg. p. 483.. rapé 
in the sense of subtraction ; see Herod. i. 120; Plut. Caes. 80 ; Wyttenb. 
ad Plat. VI. pp. 461, 1059 ; Winer, p. 377 [E. T. 503]. Deut. xxv. 3 or- 
dains that no one shall be beaten more than forty times. In order, therefore, 
not to exceed the law by possible miscounting, only nine and thirty strokes 
were commonly given under the later administration of Jewish law.? See 


Our view is already implied in the plus (not ‘in laboribus plurimis.”’ 

magis) ego of the Vulgate. Luther also has 2 This reason for omitting the last stroke 

it, recently Ewald; and Lachm. writes is given by Maimonides (see Coccej. ad Mac- 

vmepeyo as one word. Comp. also Klépper, coth iii. 10). Another Rabbinical view is 

p. 97. that thirteen strokes were given with the 
1 In the Vulgate this view has found dis- three-thonged leathern scourge, so that 

tinct expression at least in the first clause: the strokes amounted in all to thirty-nine. 


660 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21, 23, and the Rabbinical passages (especially from 
the treatise Maccoth in Surenhusius, IV. p. 269 ff.) ; in Wetstein, Schoettgen, 
Hor. p. 714 ff.; and generally, Saalschiitz, MM. R. p. 469. Paul rightly 
adduces his five scourgings (not mentioned in Acts) as proof of his év davd- 
toig ToAAdKic, for this punishment was so cruel that not unfrequently the re- 
cipients died under it ; hence there is no occasion for taking into account 
bodily weakness in the case of Paul. See Lund, Jiid. Heiligth. ed. Wolf, 
p. 589 f.—cpic éppaBdioSyv] One such scourging with rods by the Romans 
is reported in Acts xvi. 22; the two others are unknown to us. — drag é/u- 
ddod.| See Acts xiv. 19 ; Clem. 1 Cor. v. —rpig évavay.] There is nothing of 
this in Acts, for the last shipwreck, Acts xxvii., was much later. How many 
voyages of the apostle may have remained quite unknown to us ! and how 
strongly does all this list of sufferings show the incompleteness of the Book 
of Acts !—vvuy0fAuepov iv tH BvdIG reroinxa] Lyra, Estius, Calovius, and 
others explain this of a miracle, as if Paul, actually sunk in the deep, had 
spent twenty-four hours without injury ; but this view isat variance with the 
context. It is most naturally regarded as the sequel of one of these ship- 
wrecks, namely, that he had, with the help of some floating wreck, tossed 
about on the sea fora day and night, often overwhelmed by. the waves, 
before he was rescued. On Buide, the depth of the sea, comp. LXX. Ex. xv. 
5; Ps. lxvii. 14, evil. 24, al.; Bergl. ad Alciphr. i. 5, p. 10 ; and Wetstein 
in loe.—roveiv of time : to spend, as in Acts xv. 33; Jas. iv. 13 ; Jacobs, ad 
Anthol. TX. p. 449. The perfect is used because Paul, after he has simply 
related the previous points, looks back on this last from the present time 
(comp. Kiihner, § 439, 1a); there lies in this change of tenses a climactic 
vividness of representation. 

Ver. 26 f. After the parenthesis of vv. 24,25, the series* begun in ver. 23 
is now continued, dropping, however, the instrumental év, which is not to be 
supplied, and running on merely with the instrumental dative—through 
Frequent journeys, through dangers from rivers, etc. The expression ddocrop. 
roAAdKt¢ is not to be taken as saying too little, for Paul was not con- 
stantly engaged in journeys (comp. his somewhat lengthy sojourns at 
Ephesus and at Corinth); wherefore he had the less occasion here to put 
another expression in place of the woAAd«e which belonged, as it were, 
to the symmetry of the context (vv. 28, 27). Hofmann wrongly joins 
modAdcc With xevdivorc, and takes rodAdk. «evdbvorg AS In apposition to ddoi- 
mopiac : ‘‘journeys, which were often dangers.” Asif Paul were under the 
necessity of expressing (if he wished to express at all) the quite simple 
thought : ddovropiae roAAdnic émixevdbvorg (journeys which were often dan- 
gerous), in a way so singularly enigmatical as that which Hofmann im- 
putes to him. Besides, if the following elements are meant to specify the 
dangers of travel, the two points éx yévouc and é& édvér at least are not at.all 
specific perils incident to travel. And how much, in consequence of this er- 


See in general, Lund, p. 540f. According proved from the Rabbins that it was on this 
to Maccoth iii. 12, the breast, the right and account that the fortieth was not added, as 
the left shoulder, received each thirteen of | Bengel, Wetstein, and others assume. ~ 

the thirty-nine strokes. But it cannot be 


CHAP. X12528, 661 
roneous connection of ddorrop. roAAdk. kevduv., does Hofmann mar the further 
flow of the passage, which he subdivides as rorauév Kivdivoic, Anotév Kivdivace, 
éx yévoug Kivdbvorg x.T.A. Gown to év Vaddooy Kivdbvoic, but thereafter punctu- 
ates : év pevdadéAgare Kd kK. poy ev aypurTviaic, ToAAdKIC ev ALUO K. Shipet, év 
vyoteiaic, ToAAdKec év oy. kK. youv.? In this way is lost the whole beautiful and 
swelling symmetry of this outburst, and particularly the essential feature 
of the weighty anaphora, in which the emphatic word (and that is in ver. 26 
xwvdbvorc) is placed jirst (comp. ¢.g. Hom. Jl. x. 228 ff., 1. 436 ff., 11. 382 ff., 
v. 740 f.; Arrian, Diss. i. 25 ; Quinctil. ix. 3.. Comp. also ver. 20, vii: 2 ; 
Phil. iii. 2, iv. 8 al.). — vd. roraudv «.7.2.] The genitive denotes the dangers 
arising from rivers (in crossing, swimming through them, in inundations, 
and the like) and from robbers. Comp. Heliod. ii. 4. 65 ; kevdivor araccdr, 
Plat. Pol. i. p. 382 E; Huthyd. p. 279; Ecclus. xliii. 24. — The kirdbvoxe, 
each time prefixed has a strong oratorical emphasis. Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 
28. There lies in it a certain tone of triumph. — é« yévovc] on the part.of 
race, i.e. on the part of the Jews, Acts vii. 19 ; Gal. i. 14. The opposite : 
é& édvav. — év diet, in city, as in Damascus, Jerusalem, Ephesus, and others ; 
the opposite is év épnuia, in desert. On the form of expression, comp. év oiky, 
év ayp@, év peydpy, and the like. Xen. de rep. Lac. viii. 8 : 
orpatia Kai év oikw. —év wevdadédAgotc| among false brethren, i.e. among Juda- 
istic pseudo-Christians, Gal. 1. 4, of trexpivovto tiv adeAdéryra, Chrysostom. 
Why should not these, with their hostile and often vehement opposition to 
the Pauline Christianity (comp. Phil. iii. 2), have ‘actually prepared dangers 
for him? Riickert, without reason, finds this inconceivable, and believes 
that Paul here means an occasion on which non-Christians, under cover of 
the Christian name, had sought to entice the apostle into some danger 
(? xevdbvoic). — Ver. 27. orm x. pdx9q] by trouble and toil ; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 
9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8.2 Then with év aypurv. there again appears the instrumen- 
tal gv. On év Aiud «.7.4., comp. Deut. xxvill. 48. — év vyoreiaue roAddec] by 
Frequent fastings. Here precisely, where év Awé k. dipec, and so involuntary 
fasting, precedes, the reference of vyor. to voluntary fasting is perfectly 
clear (in opposition to Riickert, de Wette, Ewald). Comp. on vi. 5. Estius 
aptly observes : ‘‘jejunia ad purificandam mentem et edomandam carnem 
sponte assumta.” Comp. Theodoret and Pelagius. (w°) 

Ver. 28. Apart from that which occurs beside (beside what had been men- 
tioned hitherto) there is for me the daily attention, the anxiety for all the 
churches.* He will not adduce more particulars than he has brought for- 
ward down to yuuvdryzt, but will simply mention further a general fact, that 


3 / \ 9 
év ode Kal év 


1S0 that moddAdk, ev Awe K. diver Would 
belong to aypumviats, and moAAak, év Wye kK. 
yupvoTnte to vynoretats, each as a circum- 
stance of aggravation ; while both év aypur- 
views and év vygreiats belong to Kém@ kK, 
pOxdw. ; 

2 From these passages, combined with 
Acts xx. 31, we may at the same time ex- 
plain the aypumviac, which Hofm. interprets 
of night-watchings in anxiety about the 


pseudo- Christians. This results from his 
error in thinking that all the points in ver. 
27 are to be referred to év Wevdaderd., 

3 Accordingly the comma after jpépav is 
to be deleted. If wépiuva x.7.A. be (as is the 
usual view) taken as a clause by itself, the 
éott to be supplied is not a copula, but: 
exists. But according to the right reading 
and interpretation,  émugr. wor, as an inde- 
pendent point, would thus be too general, 


662 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


he has daily to bear anxiety for all the churches. On yopi¢g with the geni- 
tive : apart from, see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Apol. S. p. 35 C. The emphasis 
is on tacov. Theodoret : done yap the olxoupévye év éuavt@ wepidépw THV pépluvar. 
‘Nevertheless, this zacéy is not, with Bellarmine and other Roman Catholic 
writers, as well as Ewald et al., to be limited merely to Pauline churches, 
nor is it to be pressed in its full generality, but rather to be taken as a popular 
expression for his unmeasured task. He has to care for all. Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others attach yup. r. tap. to what precedes, and separate 
it from what follows by a full stop ; but this only makes the latter unneces- 
sarily abrupt. Luther, Castalio, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, 
Billroth (but uncertainly), and Olshausen, consider 7 émiotaoig K.T.A. (OF, 
according to their reading : 7 émitboraoi x.7.A.) as an abnormal apposition 
to rév mapextéc : not to mention what still occurs besides, namely, etc. This 
is unnecessarily harsh, and yuwpic¢ rév rapextéc would withal only be an empty 
formula.— ra rdpexréc is : quae praeterea eveniunt,’ not, as Beza and Bengel, 
following the Vulgate, hold : ‘‘ quae ezxtrinsecws eum adoriebantur” (Beza), 
so that either what follows is held to be in apposition (Bengel : previously he 
has described the proprios labores, now he names the alienos secum communi- 
catos), or trav mapextéc is referred to what precedes, and what follows now 
expresses the inward cares and toils (Beza, comp. Erasmus). Linguistic 
usage is against this, for rapexréd¢ never means extrinsecus, but always beside, 
in the sense of exception. See Matt. v. 82 ; Acts xxvi. 29 ; Aq. Deut. i. 36 ; 
Test. XII. Patr. p. 631 ;. Geopon. xiii. 15. 7; Htym. M. p. 652, 18. This 
also in opposition to Ewald : ‘‘ without the wnusual things,” with which 
what is daily is then put in contrast (comp. Calvin). Hofmann, following the 
reading 7 émcboracic wov, would, instead of rév rapexréc, write tov map’ éxrdc, 
which is, in his view, masculine, and denotes those coming on the apostle 
Srom without (the Christian body), whose attacks on his doctrine he must 
continually withstand. With this burden he associates the care of all the 
many churches, which lie continually on his soul. These two points are in- 
troduced by ywpic, which is the adverbial besides. This new interpretation 
(even apart from the reading émiotoracic, whichis to be rejected on critical 
grounds) cannot be accepted, (1) because oi rap’ éxré¢, for which Paul would 
have written oi éw (1 Cor. v. 12 ; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12) or of éudev 
(1 Tim. iii. 7), is an expression without demonstrable precedent, since even 
Greek writers, while doubtless using of éxréc, extranet (Polyb. ii. 47. 10, v. - 
37. 6 ; comp. Ecclus., Praef. I.), do not use oi rap’ éxré¢ ; (2) because the 
two parts of the verse, notwithstanding their quite different contents, stand 
abruptly (without «ai or év . . . dé, or other link of connection) side by side, 
so that we have not even 7 dé pépeuvd pov (over against the ériatoracic¢ pov) in- 
stead of the bare 7 uépeuva ; and (8) because the adverbial ywpicin the sense 
assumed is foreign to the N. T., and even in the classical passages in ques- 
tion (see from Thucydides, Kriiger, on i. 61. 3) it does not mean praeterea 
generally, but more strictly scorsim, separatim, specially and taken by itself.* 

1 The Armenian version gives instead of ova ra rwapareaddévta Tov amapidundéevTwv, 


Tapextos: GAAwY BACbewv. A Correct inter- 2 So, too, in the passage, Thuc. ii. 31, 2, 
pretation. Chrysostom exaggerates: mAe- adduced in Passow’s Lexicon by Rost and 


CHAP ARIS 29; 663 
See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 974. But the two very general categories, which 
it is to introduce, would not suit this sense.— 7 éxicraci¢] may mean either : 
the daily halting (comp. Xen. Anabd. ii. 4. 26 ; Polyb. xiv. 8.10; Soph. Ant. 
225: modddc yap éoyov dpovTidwyv ériotacerc, multas moras deliberationibus 
effectas), or: the daily attention. See Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 527 ; Schweigh. 
Lex. Polyb. p. 265. This signification is most accordant with the context 
on account of the following 7 pépiurva «.t.2. Riickert, without any sanction 
of linguistic usage, makes it : the throng towards me, the concourse resort- 
ing to me on official business.? So also Osiander and most older and more 
recent expositors explain the Lecepta érictoraci¢ wou or éxictor. por. But 
likewise at variance with usage, since ézotoraoic is always (even in Num. 
xxvi. 9) used in the hostile sense : hostilis concursio, tumultus, as it has also 
been taken here by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza,* Bengel, 
and others. See Acts xxiv. 12, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner, 
p. 230.—The woi ; which, in the interpretation of érior. as concourse, would 
have to be taken as appropriating dative (Bernhardy, p. 89), is, according 
to our view of ézor., to be conceived as dependent on the éo7: to be supplied. 

Ver. 29. Two characteristic traits for illustrating the pépyuva racdv tov 
éxxAjotov. Chrysostom aptly says : 
that for the individual members (Acts xx. 31). — AS dobevei with cxavdariferat, 
so also dofevé with rupovua: forms a climax—and in a way highly appropri- 
ate to the subject ! For in point of fact he could not in the second clause 
say : Kal ov oxavdadifoua. —The meaning of the verse is to express the most 
cordial and most lively sympathy (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 26) of his care amidst the 
dangers, to whom the Christian character and life of the brethren are expos- 
ed: ‘‘ Who is weak as regards his faith, conscience, or his Christian moral- 
ity, and I am not weak, do not feel myself, by means of the sympathy of my 
care, transplanted into the same position ? Who is offended, led astray to 
unbelief and sin, and I do not burn, do not feel myself seized by burning 
pain of soul ?’ Semler and Billroth, also de Wette (comp. Luther’s gloss), 
mix up what is foreign to the passage, when they make aofevé apply to the 
condescension of the apostle, who would give no offence to the weak, 1 Cor. 
ix. 22. And Emmerling (followed by Olshausen) quite erroneously takes 
it: ‘‘quem afflictum dicas, si me non dicas? quem calamitatem oppetere, st 
me non vis premi, quin uri memores?” In that case it must have run kai 


émhyaye Kai THY Exitaolw THC povTidoc, and 


12, it means the position. 


by Hofmann, where xwpis further intro- 
duces a separate army contingent, which is 
counted by itself. 

1Gregory of Nazianzus has émoracia, 
which is to be regarded as a good gloss. 
See Lobeck, /.c. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 
De, var. 

2 éxiatacis does not once mean the pressing 
on (active) the crowding. In 2 Macc. vi. 3 
(in opposition to Grimm in loc.), n érictracis 
7s kakias is the setting in, the coming on, 2.é. 
the beginning of misfortune (Polyb. i. 12. 6, 
ii. 40. 5, al.). In Dion. Halicarn. vi. 31, the 
reading is to. be changed into érideow. In 


Polyb. i. 26. 
Nevertheless, Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 156 [E. T. 
180], agrees with Riickert. 

3 Chrys: oi SdpuBor, ai rapayai, ai modAcop- 
Kiat Tov Snuwv Kai Tov mwoAewv Ehodor. Beza 
renders the whole verse: ‘‘ Absque iis, 
quae extrinsecus eveniunt, urget agmen 
illud in me quotidie consurgens, 7.é. solici- 
tudo de omnibus ecclesiis.’> Comp. Ewald: 
“the daily onset of a thousand troubles and 
difficulties on him.’ Bengel: ‘* obturbatio 
illorum, qui doctrinae vitaeve perversitate 
Paulo molestiam exhibebant, v. gr. Gal. vi. 
172 


664 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


obk éyO acbevd 3 besides, cxardarileoba never means calamitatibus affict, but 
constantly denotes religious or moral offence ; and lastly, oxavdaditera: and 
zvpovyac would yield a quite inappropriate climax (Paul must have repeated 
oxavdarifouat). — doVevei] comp. Rom. iv. 19, xiv. 1, 2, 21; 1Cor. viii. 9, 11; 
1 Thess. v.14 ; Actsxx. 35. The correspondence of oxavdadifera in the climax 
forbids us to understand it of suffering (Chrysostom, Beza, Flatt). — rvupoduar] 
What emotion is denoted by verbs of burning, is decided on each occasion 
by the context (comp. 1 Cor. vil. 9; seein general on Luke xxiv. 32), 
which here presents a climax to doVevd, therefore suggests far more naturally 
the idea of violent pain (comp. Chrys.: xa éxaotov odvvato pédoc) than 
that of anger (Luther : ‘‘it galled him hard ;” comp. Bengel, Riickert). 
Augustine says aptly : ‘‘quanto major caritas, tanto majores plagae de 
peccatis alienis.” Comp. on the expression, the Latin ardere doloribus, faces 
doloris, and the like (Kiihner, ad Cie. Tuse. ii. 25. 61); also 3 Mace. iv. 2, 
and Abresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 519. — Lastly, we have to note the change in 
the form of the antitheses, which emerges with the increasing vividness of 
feeling in the two halves of the verse : oi acdevd and ovk éya rvpoipuac. 
In the former case the negation attaches itself to the verb, in the latter to 
the person. Who is weak without weakness likewise occurring in me ? who 
is offended without its being J, who zs burning? Of the offence which another 
takes, Jon my part have the pain. , 

Ver. 30. Result of the previous passage—from ver. 23 onward ‘in proof 
of that irép éy® in ver. 23—put, however, asyndetically (without oiv), as is 
often the case with the result after a lengthened chain of thoughts (Dissen, 
ad Pind. Exc. II. de asynd. p. 278); an asyndeton summing up (Niigelsbach 
on the Iliad, p. 284, ed. 3). IfI must boast (as is the given case in confront- 
ing my enemies), J will boast in that which concerns my weakness (my suffer- 
ings, conflicts, and endurances, which exhibit my weakness), and thus prac- 
tise quite another xavyaoda” than that of my opponents, who boast in their 
power and strength. In this 7a r. ao’. pw. navy. there lies a holy oxymoron. 
To refer it to the doeveiv in ver, 29 either alone (Riickert) or inclusively (de 
Wette), is inadmissible, partly because that adoVeveiv was a partaking in the 
weakness of others, partly because the future is to be referred to what is 
meant only to follow. And it does actually follow ; hence we must not, with 
Wieseler (on Gal. p. 596), generalize the future into the expression of a 
mazim, whereby a reference to the past is facilitated. So also in the main 
Hofmann. — xavydoda:, with accusative, as ix. 2. : 

Ver. 31. He is now about to illustrate (see vv. 32, 33) the just announced 
ra THC dovevelac “ov Kavyjoouat by an historical enumeration of his sufferings 
from the beginning, but he first prefaces his detailed illustration (‘‘ rem 
quasi difficilem dicturus,” Pelagius) by the assurance, in God’s name, that he 


1 Everything in this outburst, from ver. ance of his truthfulness (ver. 31), actually 
23 onward, presented him, in fact, as the begun by him (ver. 82) in concrete historical 
servant of Christ attested by much suffering. form. , 

Thus, if he must make boast, he wishes to 2 Chrys. exclaims: Otros atmogToAtkios 
boast in nothing else than his weakness. xapaxtyp, Sua Tovtwy vpaiverat evayyéArov, 
And this cavxaodar is then, after an assur- 


CHAP. XI., 32, 33. 665 


narrates nothing false. The objections taken against referring his assurance 
to what follows (see Estius and Riickert)—that the incident adduced in ver. 
32 stands, as regards importance, out of all proportion to so solemn an 
assurance, and the like—lose their weight, when we reflect that Paul has 
afterwards again broken off (see xii. 1) the narrative begun in vv. 82, 33, and 
therefore, when writing his assurance, referred it not merely to this single 
incident, but also to all which he had it in his mind still to subjoin (which, 
however, was left undone owing to the interruption). Others refer the 
oath to what precedes, and that either to everything said from ver. 23 onward 
(Estius, Calovius, Flatt, Olshausen), or to ver. 80 alone (Morus, Riickert, 
Hofmann ; Billroth gives a choice between the two). But in the former 
case logically we could not but have expected ver. 31 after ver. 29, and in 
the latter case the assurance would appear as quite irrelevant, since Paul at 
once begins actually to give the details of his ra rij¢ aodev. pov kavyhoouat (ver. 
31 f.). — 6 ded¢ x. maTyp T. Kup. yu. ’I. X.] Union of the general and of the 
specifically Christian idea of God. ‘Hyuév yap ved¢ tov dé xvpiov rathp, Theo- 
doret. Comp. on1 Cor. xv. 24 and Eph. 1. 8. —6 dv evi0ynroc k.7.A. | append- 
ed by the apostle’s pious feeling, in order to strengthen the sacredness of 
the assurance. ‘‘ Absit ut abutar ejus testimonio, cui omnis laus et honor 
debetur in omnem aeternitatem,”’ Calovius. 

Vv. 82, 33. Paul now actually begins his cavyaoda ra tHe acdeveiac avrod, 
and that by relating the peril and flight which took place at the very com- 
mencement of his work. Unfortunately, however (for how historically im- 
portant for us would have been a further continuation of this tale of suffer- 
ing !}, yet upon the emergence of a proper feeling that the continuation of 
this glorying in suffering would not be in keeping with his apostolic position, 
he renounces the project, breaks off again at once after this first incident 
(xil. 1), and passes on to something far higher and more peculiar—to the 
revelations made to him. The expositors, overlooking this breaking off 
(noted also by Hilgenfeld), have suggested many arbitrary explanations as 
to why Paul narrates this incident in particular (he had, in fact, been in 
much worse perils !),* and that with so solemn asseveration and at such 
length. Billroth, e.g. (comp. Flatt), says that he wished to direct attention 
to the first danger pre*eminently by way of evidence that everything said 
from ver. 23 onward was true (ver. 31). In that case he would doubtless 
have written something like 767 yap év Aawaoxé, or in such other way as to 
be so understood. Olshausen contents himself with the remark that Paul has 
only made a supplementary mention of the event as the first persecution ; 
and Riickert even conjectures that it was by pure accident that Paul noted 
by way of supplement and treated in detail this story occurring to his recol- 
lection! Osiander thinks that he singled it out thus on account of its con- 
nection (?) in subject-matter and time with the following revelation, and, 
as it were, by way of further consecration of his official career. Comp. also 
Wieseler on Gal. p. 595, who likewise considers the narrative as simply a 


1 Arbitrary explanations are already and less known; and by Pelagius : because 
given by Chrysostom (comp. Bengel, Ewald, in Damascus the Jews had stirred up etiam 
and others): because the incident was older principes gentium against Paul. 


666 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


suitable historical introduction to the revelation that follows. But we do 
not see the purpose served by this detailed introduction,—which, withal, as 
such, would have no independent object whatever,—nor yet, again, the pur- 
pose served by the interruption in xii, 1. According to Hofmann, the men- 
tion of this means of rescue, of which he had made use, and which many a 
one with merely natural courage. would on the score of honour not have 
consented to employ, is intended to imply a confession of his weakness. 
The idea of weakness, however, is not at all here the opposite of the natural 
courage of honour, but rather that of the passive undergoing of all the 
radhuata Of Christ, the long chain of which, in Paul’s case, had its first link 
historically in that flight from Damascus. Calvin correctly names this flight 
the ‘‘tirocinium Pauli.” — év Aayacké] stands as an anacoluthon. When 
Paul wrote it, having already in view a further specification of place for an 
incident to follow, he had purposed to write, instead of the unsuitable 77v 
Aauacknvév réAvv, something else (such as ra¢ rbAac), but then left out of 
account the év Aawacké already written. It is a strange fancy to which Hof- 
mann has recourse, that 7. Aauwack. réAcv is meant to be a narrower concep- 
tion than év Aauackd. —édvapyne| prefect (Josephus, Antt. xiv. 7. 2; 1Mace. 
xiv. 47, xv. 1 ; Strabo, xvii. p. 798 ; Lucian, Macrob. 17), an appellation of 
Oriental provincial governors. See in general, Joh. Gottlob Heyne, de 
ethnarcha Aretae, Witeb. 1755, p. 3 ff. The incident itself described is 
identical with that narrated in Acts ix. 24 f. No doubt in Acts the watch- 
ing of the gates is described to the Jews, and here, to the ethnarch ; but the 
reconciliation of the two narratives is itself very naturally effected through 
the assumption that the ethnarch caused the gates to be watched by the Jews 
themselves at their suggestion (comp. Heyne, /.c. p. 39). ‘‘ Jewish gold had 
perhaps also some effect with the Emir,” Michaelis. —rjv Aayack. ré6Aw] 
namely, by occupying the gates so that Paul might not get out. Regarding 
the temporary dominion over Damascus held at that time by Aretas, the Ara- 
bian king, and father-in-law of Herod Antipas, see on Acts, Introd. § 4, and 
observe that Paul wouid have had no reason for adding ’Apéra tot Baotdéwc, 
if at the very time of the flight the Roman city had not been exceptionally 
(and temporarily) subject to Aretas—a state of foreign rule for the time 
being, which was to be brought under the notice of the reader. Hofmann 
thinks that the chief of the Arabian inhabitants in the Roman city was meant ; 
but with the less ground, since Paul was a Jew and had come from Jerusa- 
lem, and consequently would not have belonged at all to the jurisdiction of 
such a tribal chief (if there had been one). He went to Arabia (Gal. i. 17) 
only in consequence of this incident. —did Yupidoc by means of a little door 
(Plato, Pol. ii. p. 8359 D; Lucian, Asin. 45). It was doubtless an opening 
high up in the city wall, closed, perhaps, with a lid or lattice. —év capyavq] 
in a wickerwork, i.e. basket (Lucian, Lexiph. 6). Comp. Acts: ix. 25: é» 
orvpidt. —On the description itself Theodoret rightly remarks; 7d rob 
Kevdvvov péyetoc TH TpdTw THEO dvyHe TapEedhAwoe. 


NOTES. 667 


Nores spy AmeERiIcAN Eprror. 
(n®) ‘* A godly jealousy.” Ver. 2. 


This phrase, given in.the A. V. and retained in the Revision, includes all the 
possible meanings of the original ; for a godly jealousy may be at once one of 
which Godisthe author or the object, one that He has, or that is pleasing to 
Him, or that is extraordinarily great. 


(0°) ‘* The serpent.” Ver. 3. 


The comparison made here is a clear evidence that Paul accepted the narra- 
tive of the fall as an historical fact. For afable would give no ground for his 
fear, and would be inconsistent with the earnestness of this passage. The 
comparison suggests that the serpent was a mouthpiece of a spiritual foe. 


(p*) Paul's manifestation. Ver. 6. 


A better sense than that of the T. R., which Dr. Meyer adopts, is obtained 
from the reading of all the later editors, which gives an active participle : have 
made manifest; viz. the Apostle’s knowledge of divine revelations and spiritual 
truths. 

(Q°) Paul’s gratuitous service. Ver. 7. 


This verse and the following seem designed to answer the charges founded 
on the fact that he took no money from the Corinthian church, but supported 
himself by his own labours and the gifts of others. The charges were that a 
real apostle could not thus abstain from claiming his undoubted right, and that 
Paul’s doing it indicated a want of confidence in the Corinthians. He vindicates 
his course, and declares his intention to persist in it. 


(n°) ‘* Satan transformed.” Ver. 14. . 


It would hardly be possible to affirm the personality of Satan more strongly 
than is done here. The practical suggestion is also of imménse weight—Satan 
does not come to us as Satan. 


(s°) ‘* Whose end shall be according to their works.” Ver. 15. 


On this Beet remarks that Paul had no expectation that all men would event- 
ually be saved. For he is evidently thinking of bad works, and therefore of a 
bad end. But if finally restored, the end of all men and of these servants of 
Satan would be endless happiness, in whose light the most terrible and pro- 
longed bygone torments will, as endless and glorious ages roll by, dwindle into 
insignificance. 

(r°) Paul’s boasting. Ver. 16. 


Three times he has attempted to begin his boast, first in x. 18, when he is 
interrupted by the recollection of the hollowness of the boast of his opponents 
and compelled to assert the reality of his own ; again, in xi. 1, when he is checked 
by the recollection of the difficulty of pressing it on readers so perverted as the 
Corinthians by the influence of their false teachers ; again, in xi. 6, when he is 
led aside to answer the charge arising out of his refusal ofsupport. Now once 
more he returns to the point, and now for the first time carriesit through. Heis 


668 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


still oppressed by the consciousness of the seeming senselessness of such self- 
praise ; but he defends himself on two grounds: that he is driven to it by the 
pretensions of his opponents ; and that he is speaking, not of his higher gifts, 
of which he might reasonably be proud, but of those very points in his con- 
duct and character which had given occasion to his opponents to charge him 
with ‘‘ weakness,” x. 10. (Stanley). 


(u®) ** Not after the Lord.’’ Ver. 17. 


This phrase means, ‘‘ Not as Christ would have me speak, but in the person of 
a fool.’’ Such an utterance is not inconsistent with the Apostle’s claim to in- 
spiration. For the simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the 
communication of truth. It does not sanctify, nor does it preclude the natural 
play of the intellect or of the feelings. Even if therefore this conduct of Paul 
was due to human weakness, that would not prove that he was not under the 
inspiration of God. But such an assumption is needless. There was nothing 
wrong in his self-laudation. He never appears more truly humble than when 
these references to his labours and sufferings were wrung from him, filling him 
with a feeling of self-contempt. All that the expression implies is that self- 
praise, in itself considered, is not the work of a Christian ; it is not a work to 
which the Spirit of Christ impels a believer. But when it is necessary to the 
vindication of the truth or the honour of religion, it becomes a duty (Hodge). 


(v®) ** According to the flesh.” Ver. 18. 


Surely there is no necessity of supplying these words at the end of the verse. 
What the Apostle means is, ‘‘Asmany boast from unworthy motives, I also 
will boast.” If they did it from bad motives, he might well do it from good 
motives; and that he did it from such motives the whole section shows. 


(w®) Paul's toils and sufferings. Ver. 27. 


On this graphic statement Stanley justly remarks that ‘‘it represents a life 
in the Western world [may we not add, in the Eastern also?] hitherto with- 
out precedent. Self-devotion for some special national cause had been often 
seen before; the career of Socrates was a lifelong service to humanity ; but a 
continual self-devotion, involving hardships like those here described, and ex- 
tending over so long a period and in behalf of no local or family interest, but 
for the interest of mankind at large, was, down to this period, a thing unknown. 
Paul did all this, and Paul was the first who did it.’’—‘‘ This passage makes 
even the most laborious of the modern ministers of Christ hide their faces in 
shame. What have they ever done or suffered to compare with what this apos- 
tle did? It is a consolation to know that Paul is now as pre-eminent in glory 
as he was here in suffering” (Hodge).—Stanley adds further: ‘It is remark- 
able that while there is nothing in this account which contradicts, yet the 
greater part of it goes far beyond the narrative of the Acts. It shows that the 
biography of the Apostle, unlike most biographies of heroes and saints (e.g. 
Xavier), instead of overrating, underrates the difficulties and sufferings which 
we learn from the Apostle’s own account, the accuracy of which is guaranteed 
by the extreme and apparently unfeigned reluctance with which it is brought 
forward.”’ 


CHAP. XII. 669 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 1. xavydoba bn] So also Tisch., following K M and most min. Arm. and 
the Greek Fathers. But B D** E F GI, and many min.,, also Syr. utr. Arr. 
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. have the reading xavydo$a: d¢i, which Griesb. has recom- 
mended, and Scholz, Lachm. Riick. have adopted. D* 8* 114, Copt. Slav. 
codd. Lat. Theophyl. have xavydodar dé, which Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 122 f., 
prefers. The testimonies for cavydofa: dei preponderate so decidedly that we 
are not entitled to derive dei from xi. 30. On the other hand, the apparent 
want of connection in xavy. dei ov ovud. was sufficient occasion, partly for 
changing dei into dé, or by means of itacism into dy (the latter Reiche defends 
and Ewald follows, also Hofm.), partly for prefixing an « to the cavy. from xi. 
30 (S8** 39, Lect. 17, Vulg. Pel.). — ob cvuoéper por, EAevoouat yap] Lachm, and 
Riick. read od ovugépov pév, thetoouer dé (Lachm.: 0d? «ai, after B), supported by 
BFG &, and in part by some min. vss. and Fathers. But pév .. . dé betrays 
itself as a correction by way of gloss of the difficult ydp, in which joi was sup- 
planted by ywév, and yap by dé The question whether ovidépov is original 
instead of cuudéper, is decided by the circumstance that, according to the codd., 
the reading cuudépov is connected with the reading pév . . . dé, and hence falls 
with it, — Ver. 3. éxréc¢] B D* E* 8, Method. in Epiph. have ywpic. So Lachm. 
Tisch. and Riick. Rightly ; éxtéc is from ver. 2. The subsequent ove oida is 
deleted by Lachm., but only on the authority of B, Method. — Ver. 6. ri] is doubt- 
less wanting in B D*** E** F G8* 37, 67** Arm. Boern. Tol. Harl.** codd. Lat. Or., 
andis deleted by Lachm. and Rick. But how easily it was left out, being regard- 
ed as utterly superfluous, and even as confusing !— Ver. 7. Before the first iva 
Lachm. has 6:6, following ABF G 817, Boern. An insertion for the sake of con- 
nection, occasioned by the not recognizing the inverted order of the words, so 
that cai tH brepB. THY aroncdA. was attached in some way to what goes before 
(with some such meaning as this ; in order that no one may get a higher opinion 
of me... eventhrough the abundance of the revelations). — The second iva px) brepal- 
popatis wanting inA D E F G &8*17, and several vss, and Fathers (bracketed by 
Lachm.) ; but the emphasis of the repetition being overlooked, the words have 
been passed over as having been used already. — Ver. 9. divayic¢ wov] pov is 
wanting in A* B D* FG 8, and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Bengel, 
Lachm. Tisch. Considering, however, the no small weight of the testimonies 
for wou (A** D*** E KL &** and almost all min. vss. Or. Chrys. Theodoret), 
and seeing that the syllable wov might easily be passed over after, the syllable 
juc, the Recepta is to be preserved, its sense also being necessary according to 
the whole context. — reAccoivac] AB D* FG N*haveredeitar. So Lachm. Tisch. 
and Rick. Rightly ; the former is an interpretation, — Ver. 11. After a¢pwv 
Elz. has xavyépevoc, against decisive evidence. An exegetical addition. — Ver. 
12. év onueiowc] év is wanting in A B D* § 17, 39, 71, al. Vulg. ms. Clar. Germ. 
Tol. and Fathers ; while F G, Boern. Syr. ‘Chrys. Ambrosiast. have kai. év is 
mechanically repeated from what precedes, and with Lachm. Tisch. and Rick. 


670 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


is to be deleted. — Ver. 13. r776nTe] B D* 8* 17 have joodOnre (so Lachm.), which 
is nothing but.a copyist’s error, and in Dand \ is rightly corrected ; F G have 
éAattoonre, Which is a gloss. — Ver. 14. After tpizov Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
Riick. Tisch. read rovro, following doubtless a preponderance of authorities, 
among which, however, D E 93, Copt. Syr.? put it before tpirov. An addition 
from xiii. 1. — jor] is wanting after xatavapx. in AB §&17, 71, al. Aeth. Damasc., 
while D* F G have jude. Both have been supplied, and are rightly deleted by 
Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 15, ei kai] xai is wanting in A BF G §* Copt. Sahid. 
Deleted by Lachm. An addition from misunderstanding ; see the exegetical 
remarks. — Ver. 19. taAcv] Lachm, Tisch. and Riick. read ta4a on preponder- 
ating evidence. Rightly ; the tdAa: not understood was erroneously glossed. — 
In what follows xarévavti is to be adopted instead of xarevériov, with Lachm. 
and Riick., on preponderating evidence. Comp. ii. 17. — Ver. 20. Instead of 
of épecc, Lachm. and Riick. read épic, but against preponderating evidence. 
The latter might easily originate through itacism. Instead of (7/01, Lachm. 
Tisch. and Riick. read ¢ji0c, following A B D* F G, Goth. Syr. Arm. Dam. 
Rightly ; the plural crept in from the surrounding forms, — Ver. 21. é266vra pe] 
Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read é/6vro¢ pod, following ABFG &* 39, 93. 
Rightly ; the Recepta is a grammatical emendation, which brought with it the 
omission of the subsequent we. — Tarervdon] Lachm. and Tisch. read tareivacet, 
following BD EF GL, min. Oec. The subjunctive is a mechanical alteration 
in accordance with the preceding and usual form. 


ConTEntTs.—Breaking off from what precedes, Paul passes over to the 
revelations which he has had, narrates one of them, and says : Of this he 
would boast, not of himself, except only of his weaknesses ; for he will | 
perpetrate no folly by self-glorying, but abstains from it, in order not to 
awaken too high an opinion of himself (vv. 1-6). And in order that he 
might not plume himself over those revelations, there was given to him a 
painful affliction, on account of which after a thrice-repeated invocation he 
had been referred by Christ to His grace ; hence he preferred to glory in 
his weaknesses, in order that he might experience the power of Christ, for 
which reason he had pleasure in his weaknesses (vv. 7-10). — He had be- 
come a fool, compelled thereto by them ; for he ought to have been com- 
mended by them, since in no respect did he stand behind the fancied apos- 
tles, but, on the contrary, had wrought amongst them the proofs of his 
apostolic dignity (vv. 11, 12). This leads him, amidst bitter irony, again 
to his gratuitous working, which he will continue also on his third arrival 
(vv. 18-15). But not only had he not by himself and immediately taken 
advantage of them, but not even through others mediately (vv. 16-18). 
Now begins the conclusion of the whole section’: Not before them, but 
before God, does he vindicate himself, yet for their edification. For he 
fears that he may find them not in the frame of mind which he wishes, and 
that he may be found by them in a fashion not wished for (vv. 19-21). 

Ver. 1.’ Scarcely has Paul, in xi. 32 f., begun his cavyaoda: ra rij¢ aodeveiac 


1 See on ver. 1 ff., Beyschlag in the Stud. schlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ; 
u. Krit. 1864, p. 206 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his also Holsten, zum Evang. des Paul. u. d. 
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 173 ff.; and again, Bey- et7. 1868, p. 21 ff. 


CHAP, XII.,. 1. 671 
with the incident in Damascus, when he breaks off again with the thought 
which, in the instantaneous, true tact of his consciousness (comp. on xi, 382 
f.), as it were bars his way : xavyaoda dei, ob cvudéper wot (See the critical re- 
marks) : to boast of myself is necessary, not beneficial for me. Let it be 
observed that oi cuud. is the antithesis of dei ; (necesse, non utile est), and 
that a comma only must therefore stand after det ; further, that poe belongs 
not merely to cvud., but also to det (Tob. v. 14; Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 
8. 10, Anab. iii. 4. 35; Mitzner, ad Antiph. p. 257) ;* lastly, that coupé. 
means the moral benefit as opposed to the ethical disadvantage of the self- 
exaltation (comp. ver. 7, and see Theophyl.) : ‘‘saluberrimum animo 7 ric 
Comp. Ignat. Trall. 4: rodad dpovd év Be, aan’ 
éuauTov petpa, iva uy év Kavyfoet ardAwua. ‘The dei arose out of the existing 
circumstances of the Corinthians, by which Paul had seen himself necessi- 
tated to the xavyaoda ; but the ov ovugéper prevails with him to pass on to 
something else and far higher, as that in which there lay no se/f-glory (ver. 
5). With the reading 6% (see the critical remarks) the 67 would only make 
the notion of kavyaoda: more significantly ? prominent, like the German eben 
or ja (certainly, or indeed] (see Kriiger, § 69, 19. 2 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 392 ; 
Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 98), but could not, as Hofmann (with an inap- 
propriate appeal to Hartung) assumes, denote glorying ‘‘ simply and abso- 
lutely,” in contrast with a xkavyao9a ra tie adoSeveiac. This Paul would have 
known how to express by something like driéc¢ 67 Kavyaodat. — éheicouaz | 
not : I would (to which Hofmann practically comes), but : I will (now) 
come to speak. See Wolf, Curae; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ix. 83, p. 119. — 
yap| He might also have said oiv, but his conception is, that by his passing 
over to something else the ob ovudéper wor is illustrated and confirmed. See 
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 235 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 86. —eic ortacia cxal aroKar. 
xupiov| i.e. to facts, in which Christ imparted to me visions and revelations.* 
The genitivus subjecti xvpiov is the characteristic definition, which both words 
need (not simply the second, to which Hofmann limits it). Theophylact 
remarks that in azoxad. there is added to orrac. something more, 7 wav yap 


oihoewe avotoAg,” Grotius. 


1 Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 404) objects 
that Paul must have written ‘‘ solenniter et 
perspicue :” cavxartar eué det, ov d€ cupdéper 
por. But if wor were not to be referred 
jointly to dec, seeing that det with the dative 
and infinitive certainly is found in classical 
writers seldom (see also Ellendt, Lew. Soph. 
i. p. 899 f.), and never in the N. T., an éué 
would not be necessary : but «xavx. det may 
be taken absolutely: boasting is necessary 
(ander the circumstances given), not advan- 


it, therefore, as if Paul had written: ov« 
Theodoret had 
already taken it erroneously, quite like 
Reiche. 

2“aé est particula determinativa, id 
verbum, quod sequitur, graviter efferens,”’ 
Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 7.2. Comp. also 
Hartung, Partik. I. p. 288. Erasm.: “glo- 
riari sane non expedit mihi.’’ It might ac- 
cordingly be taken also with a touch of 
irony, like scilicet ; boast indeed Tmust. See 


€4.0C OF OVK E“avT@ cumdéper. 


tageous is it tome. The non-use of 6€ or adda 
is in keeping with the very common asyn- 
detic juxtaposition of contrasted state- 
ments, 1 Cor. vii. 6; Rom. ii. 29; 2 Cor. v. 
8, el al. Reiche himself, defending the fe- 
cepta, lays the whole emphasis on pou: my 
boasting takes place not for my own advan- 
tage, but for yours (in order to correct your 
judgment regarding me, etc.). He explains 


Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 173 E; War- 
tung, /.c. Holsten also, /.c. p. 28, takes it in 
the ironical sense. 

3 As is well known, from this passage 
arose the apocryphal ’AmoxaAviis IlavAov, 
and (or?) the “AvaBatixdy HavAov. See Liicke- 
Einl. in ad. Offend. Joh. 1. p. 244 ff. ed. 2. Theo, 
phylact finds the proof that this treatise is 
not genuine in appyra, ver. 4. 


\ 


672 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
pévoy Bréxey didwowv, aitn d& Kai te Baditepov Tov dpwuésvov aroyvuvol. This © 
distinction, however, keeps the two ideas apart contrary to their nature, as 
if the apocalyptic element were not given with the oztacia. ’Orraocia 
(‘‘ species visibilis objecta vigilanti aut somnianti,’” Grotius) is rather a 
special form of recewing the aroxddvyu¢ (comp. Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offend. Joh. 
I. p. 27, ed. 2), which latter may take place by means of such a miraculous 
vision (Dan. ix. 23, x. 1, 16) ; see also Luke i. 22 ; Acts xxvi. 19. This is 
the meaning of ozracia here, and aroxad. is a wider idea (inasmuch as 
revelations occur also otherwise than in the way of visions beheld, although 
here ensuing in that way ; comp. ver. 7, where droxa2. stands alone.—That 
Paul by what follows wishes to prove, with a polemic object against the 
Christine party, that external acquaintance with Christ was superfluous (so 
Baur ; see also Oecumenius), is not to be assumed, just because otherwise 
the mention of his having had a vision of Christ would be necessary for its 
bearing on the sequel. Nor can we from this passage infer it as the distinc- 
tive feature of the Christines, that they had claimed to stand by visions and 
revelations in a mystical connection with Christ (Schenkel, Dihne, de 
Wette, Goldhorn ; comp. also Ewald, Beyschlag), since Paul is contending 
against specifically Judaistic opponents, against whom he pursues his gen- 
eral purpose of elucidating his apostolic dignity, which enemies obscured 
in Corinth,’ from the special distinctions which he, and not his opponents, . 
had to show (comp. Ribiger, p. 210 ; Klépper, p. 99 ff.). (x°) 

Ver. 2. He now quotes instar omnium a single event of such a nature, 
specially memorable to him and probably unique in his experience, vv. 2-4. 
. who was snatched away. Paul 
speaks of himself as of a third person, because he wishes to adduce some- 
thing in which no part of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper. And 
how suitable in reality was the nature of such an event to the modest mode 
of representation, excluding all ‘self-glory ! In that ecstasy the Ego had 
indeed really ceased to be the subject of its own activity, and had become 
quite the object of the activity of others, so that Paul in his usual condition 
came before himself as other than he had been in the ecstasy, and his J, 
considered from the standpoint of that ecstasy, appeared as a he. —év Xpior] 
aman to be found in Christ (as the element of life), 1 Cor. i. 30, a Christian ; 
not : ‘‘ quod in Christo dico, i.e. quod sine ambitione dictum velim,” Beza, 
connecting it with oida (comp. Emmerling). — rpo érév dexatecodpwov| belongs 
to dprayévra, from which it is separated by the parenthesis. We may add 
that this note of time is already decisive against those, who ether find in 
this incident the conversion of the apostle (or at least something connected 
therewith), as Damasus, Thomas, Lyra, L. Capellus, Grotius, Oeder, Keil, 
Opusc. p. 318 ff. ; Matthaei, Religionsgl. I. p. 610 ff., and others, including 


—oida avi porov x.7.A.] L know a man . 


1 According to Hilgenfeld, Paul means 
now toimpart yet something greater than 
the vision of Christ (?) at his call. Not some- 
thing greater, but something quite of 
another kind. Holsten, too, finds in the 
ortacias something, which exalts Paul above 
the original apostles, since to the latter 


such things had not been imparted after 
the resurrection of Christ. That, indeed, 
we do not at all know. We are acquainted 
with analogous disclosures also by Peter. 


-And how scanty are our sources regarding 


the history of the Twelve! 


GBAP) XII, 2: 673 
tr 

Bretschneider and Reiche, and quite recently Stélting, Beitr. 2. Heeg. d. 
Paul. Br. 1869, p. 173—or identify it with the appearance in the temple, 
Acts xxii. 17 ff., as Calvin (but uncertainly), Spanheim, Lightfoot, J. Ca- 
pellus, Rinck, Schrader, and others ; comp. also Schott, Hrért. p. 100 ff. ; 
Wurm in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 41 ff. ; Wieseler, p. 165, and on Gal. 
p. 591 ff. ; Osiander. The conversion was upwards of twenty years earlier 
than this Epistle (see on Acts, Introd. § 4). See, besides, Estius and 
Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 58 ff. ; Anger, rat. temp. p. 164 ff. In fact, even if the 
definition of the time of this event could be reconciled with that of the ap- 
pearance in the temple, Acts xxii. 17 ff., still the narrative of this passage (see 
especially ver. 4 : jKovoev appyra x.T.A.) 1s at any rate so essentially different 
from that in Acts xxii., that the identity is not to be assumed.’ The connec- 
tion which Wieseler assumes with the Damascene history does not exist in 
reality (comp. on xi. 32f.), but with xii. .1 there begins something new. The 
event here mentioned, which belongs in point of time to the stay at Antioch 
or to the end of the stay at Tarsus (Acts xi. 25), is to us quite unknown 
otherwise. The reason, however, why Paul added the definition of time is, 
according to Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodoret, and others, given thus : 
‘‘videmus Paulum ipsum per annos quatuordecim tacuisse, nec verbum fuisse 
facturum, nisi importunitas malignorum coégisset,” Calvin. But how purely 
arbitrary ! And whence is it Known that he had been so long silent re- 
garding the ecstasy ? No; the specification of time flowed without special 
design just as naturally from the pre-eminently remarkable character which 
the event had for Paul, as from the mode of the representation, according 
to which he speaks of himself as of a third person, in whose case the notice 
of an already long past suggested itself spontaneously ; for ‘‘ longo tempore 
alius a@ se ipso quisque factus videtur” (Bengel). —eize év couarti] sc. yordyn 
from what follows. Regarding eite . . . eire, whether. . . or, see Hartung, 
Partikell. Il. p. 202 f. also Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 224. He puts the 
two cases as quite equal as respects possibility, not the first as more probable; 
hence with the second éire no xai is added ; see Dissen. In that ecstasy his 
lower consciousness had so utterly fallen into abeyance, that he could not 
afterwards tell (according to Athan. c. Ar. Serm. 4 : dared not tell) whether 
this had taken place by means of a temporary withdrawal of his spirit out 
of the body, or whether his whole person, the body included (év cowarv), had 
been snatched away. By this alternative he expresses simply the utter 77- 
comprehensibleness for him of the manner of the occurrence. It is to him as 
if either the one or the other had taken place, but he knows neither the 
former nor the latter ; hence he is not to be made responsible for the possi- 
bility or eventual mode of the one or other. ‘‘ Ignoratio modi non tollit cer- 
tam rei scientiam,” Bengel. Following Augustine, Genes. ad lit. xii. 5, Thomas 
and Estius explained év cduate : anima in corpore manente, so that Paul would 
say that he does not know whether it took place in a vision (¢v céuarv) or by an 


1 According to Wieseler, the appyra pjuata the revelation laying the basis for his voca- 
were the preparatory basis for the delega- _tion among the Gentiles had been received 
tion of the apostle in Acts xxii. 18,21. But by Paul much earlier than the appearance 
there is no hint of this in either text. And in the temple, Gal. i. 15. 


674 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

actual snatching away of the spirit (éxrd¢ row o.). But if he had been uncer- 
tain, and had wished to represent himself as uncertain, whether the matter 
were only a seeing and perceiving by means of the spiritual senses or a real 
snatching away, it would not have had at all the great importance which it 
is held to have in the context, and he would only have exposed to his rivals 
a weak point, seeing that inward visions of the supernatural, although in 
the form of divinely presented apparitions, had not the quite extraordinary 
character which Paul manifestly wishes to ascribe to the event described. 
This also in opposition to Beyschlag, 1864, p. 207, who explains the alter- 
native cite év couate only as the bestowal of a marvellous ‘‘range” and 
‘‘reach” of the inward senses—in spite of the aprayévra. Moreover, we must 
not ascribe to the apostle the Rabbinical opinion (in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 
697) that he who is caught into paradise puts off his body and is clothed 
with an ethereal body ; because otherwise he could not have put the case 
eite év cHuatt.’ So much, however, is clear, that for such a divine purpose 
he held as possible a temporary miraculous withdrawal of the spirit from the 
body without death.? The mode* in which this conceived possibility was to 
take place must be left undetermined, and is not to be brought under the 
point of view of the separability of the bare rveiua (without the avy) from 
the body (Osiander) ; for spirit and soul form inseparably the Hgo even in 
the trichotomistic expression of 1 Thess. v. 23, as likewise Heb. iv. 12 (see 
Liinemann in loc.). Comp. also Calovius against Cameron. Hence also it 
is not to be said with Lactantius : ‘‘ abit animus, manet anima.”—The anar- 
throus év céuat: means bodily, and that his own body was meant by it, and 
tov céuaroc With the article is not anything different, was obvious of itself 
to the reader ; céua did not need the article, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 
83 C.— dprayévra] the stated word used of sudden, involuntary raptures. 
See Acts viii. 39; Rev. xii. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 17. The form of the 2d aorist 
belongs to the deteriorated Greek. See Thomas Mag. p. 424; Buttmann, 
I. p. 381. —rdv rowirov] summing up again (Kithner, II. p. 330) : such an 
one, with whom it wasso. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 5. — éw¢ tpitov ovp. | thus, through 
the first and second heaven into the third. As the conception of several 
heavens pervades the whole of the O. and N. T. (see especially, Eph. iv. 10; 
Heb. iv. 14) ; as the Rabbins almost unanimously (Rabbi Juda assumed only 
two) reckon seven heavens (see the many passages in Wetstein, Schoettgen, 
Hor. p. 718 ff. ; comp. also Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 460 ; 
Hahn, Theol. d. N.T. I. p. 247) ; and as Paul here names a definite number, 


1 Just as little is the case put to be made 
conceivable as a momentary transfiguration 
of the body (Osiander). The bodily trans- 
figuration is simply an eschatological event 
(1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 17). and a trans- 
formation of such a nature, that after it the 
return to the previous condition is quite in- 
conceivable. 

2 Comp. the passage already quoted in 
Wetstein from Philo, de Somn.I. p. 626, 
where Moses acwpmaros yevouevos is said to 


have fasted forty days. 

3 The remark of Delitzsch in this connec- 
tion: “*because what is experienced com- 
presses itself, after the fashion of eternity, into 
a moment” (Psychol. p. 357). is to me obscure 
and too strange to make it conceivable by 
me. 

4 In Lucian, Philopatr. 12, Christ (TaAtAaios) 
is mocked atas eis tpirov ovpavov axpoBatnaas 
Kal TA KAAALOTA EKMEMATNKOS, 


CHAPS XI ik. 675 
without the doctrine of only three heavens occurring elsewhere ; as he also 
in ver. 4 specifies yet a higher locality situated beyond the third heaven : it 
is quite arbitrary to deny that he had the conception of seven heavens, 
as was done by Origen, contra Celsum, vi. p. 289: éxra 68 ovpavodc, i) bAw¢ 
Tepoptauévoy api mov avTov, ai depduevat év Taig ’«KAnoiate ovK arayyédAovol ypagai. 
(x°) The rationalistic explanations of more recent expositors, such as that 
of Billroth (following Schoettgen) : that he only meant by this figurative 
(?) expression to express the nearness in which his spirit found itself to 
God, have as little exegetical warrant as the explanation of Calvin, Calo- 
vius, and others, that the holy number three stands kav’ éfoyfv pro summo 
et perfectissimo, so that tpirov denotes ‘‘ the highest and most perfect sphere 
of the higher world” (Osiander) ;* or as the assertion of others (Estius, 
Clericus, Bengel, and others), that it is a doctrine of Scripture that there are 
only three heavens (the heaven of clouds, the heaven of stars, and the 
empyrean ; according to Damascenus, Thomas, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
others, ‘‘coelum siderewm, crystallinum, empyreum ;” according to Grotius : 
“‘regio nubifera, reg. astrifera, reg. angelifera”’), or the fiction of Grotius , 
and Emmerling, that the Jews at that time had assumed only these three 
heavens. It istrue that, according to the Rabbins, the third heaven was 
still no very exalted region.? But we do not know at all what conception of 
the difference of the seven heavens Paul followed (see below), and are there- 
fore not at all justified in conjecturing, with Riickert, in opposition to the 
number seven, that Paul was not following the usual hypothesis, but another, 
according to which the third heaven was at least one of the higher ;° but see 
on ver. 4, where a still further ascent from the third heaven into paradise 
is mentioned. Even de Wette finds the usual view most probable, that by 
the third heaven is meant the highest ; ‘‘in such things belongjng to pious 
fancy nothing was established until the Rabbinical tradition became fixed.” 
But the third heaven must have been to the readers a well-known and already 
established conception ; hence we are the less entitled to depart from the 
historically attested number seven, and to adopt the number three (nowhere 
attested among the Jews) which became current in the church only on the 
basis of this passage (Suicer, 7es. II. p. 251), while still in the Test. XII. 
Patr. (belonging to the second century) p. 546 f., the number seven holds 
its ground, and the seven heavens are exactly described, as also the Ascensio 
Jesaiae (belonging to the third century). has still this conception of Jewish 
gnosis (see Liicke, Hinl. in d. Offend. Joh. I. p. 287 f., ed. 2). How Paul 
conceived to himself the several heavens as differing, we cannot determine, 


- 


1 The old Lutherans, in the interests of the 
doctrine of ubiquity, maintained that the 
third heaven and paradise denote ‘‘ statiuvm 
potius alterius saeculi -quam locum,” 
Hunnius. 

2 The Rabbinical division was different, 
é.g. (1) velum; (2) expansum ; (8) nubes ; (4) 
habitaculum ; (5) habitatio ; (6) sedes fixa ; 
(7) Araboth or trapetov. Others divide in 
other ways. See Wetstein. 


3 Riickert appeals to the fact that R. Juda 
assumed only f2vo heavens. But this iso- 
lated departure from the usual Rabbinical 
type of doctrine cannot have any applica- 
tion here, where a ¢hird heaven is named. 
Passages would rather have to be shown, 
in which the number of heavens was 
assumed to be under seven and above two. 
In the absence of such passages, Riickert’s 
conjecture is groundless. 


} 


676 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
especially as in those Apocryphal books and among the Rabbins the state- 
ments on the point are very divergent. Erroneously, because the concep- 
of several heavens is an historical one, Hofmann (comp, also his Schrift- 
beweis, II. 1, p. 535) has regarded. éw¢/tpirov odpavod as belonging to the vision, 
not to the conception (in connection with which he lays stress on the absence 
of the article), and spiritualizes the definite concrete utterance to this effect, 
that Paul in the vision, which made visible to him in a spiritual manner the 
invisible, ‘‘saw himself caught away beyond the lower domains of the super- 
mundane and up into a higher region.” This is to depart from the clear lit- 
eral meaning and to lose oneself in generalities. It is quite unwarranted to 
adduce the absence of the article with rpirov, since with ordinal numbers 
the article is not at all required, Matt. xx. 3; Mark xv. 25; Acts ii. 15, 
xxii. 23; Johni. 40; Thuc. ii. 70. 5 ; Xen. Anab. iii. 6. 1; Lucian, Alex. 
18; 1 Sam. iv. 7; Susann. 15; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 35; 
Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 292, ed. 3. | 

Vv. 3, 4. And I know such aman... that he, namely, was caught away, 
etc. The expression is here the well-known attraction oidd ce tic ei. Most 
expositors consider the matter itself as not different from what is mentioned 
in ver. 2, so that zpiroc obpavéc and 6 rapddecoog Would be one and the same. 
But it is decisive against this view, that 6 tpitoc otpavée cannot without arbi- 
trariness be taken otherwise than of a region of heaven comparatively low 
(see on ver. 2). Besides, the whole circumstantial repetition, only with a 
change in designating the place, would not be solemn language, but battol- 
This also in opposition to Hofmann, who imports the modification : 
‘‘The one time emphasis is laid only on the surroundings, into which he 
found himself transported away from the earth ; the other time on the con- 
trast of the fellowship of God, into which he was transported away from the 
church of God here below.” Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Origen, Atha- 
nasius, and several Fathers and schoolmen (see Estius and Bengel on the 
passage), also Erasmus* and Bengel’, have rightly distinguished paradise 
from the third heaven. Comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 246 ; Osian- 
der, Hilgenfeld, and others. Still we are not, with Bengel (comp. de 
Wette), to regard (see on ver. 2) paradise as interius guiddam in coelo tertio, 
quam ipsum coelum tertium (comp. Cornelius & Lapide) ; but Paul relates 
first how he was caught up into the third heaven, and then adds, as a fur- 
ther point in the experience, that he was transported further, higher up 
into paradise, so that the éwe¢ rpirov oipavod was a break, as it were, a resting- 
point of the raptus. Thus, too, the repetition of the same words, as well 
as the repetition of the parenthesis, obtains its solemn character ; for the 
incident is reported step by step, i.e. in two stages.— The paradise is here 
not the lower, i.e. the place in Sheol, in which the spirits of the departed 


ogy. 


1“ Raptus est in tertium usque coelum, 
hine rursum in paradisum,”’’ Erasmus in his 
Paraphr. Comp. Clemens Alex. : €ws tpirov 
ovpavod, Kakecdev eis mapadercov (Strom. Vv. 
p. 427). 

2 Who as to the repetition of the same 


words judges very rightly: ‘Non solum 
suaviter suspendunt acuuntque lectorem, 
et gloriationi consideratae pondus addunt, 
sed etiam plane duplex rei momentum expry 
munt,” 


CHAP. XII, 5. 677 


righteous are until the resurrection (see on Luke xvi. 23, xxiii. 43), nor as 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. Il. 1, p. 489, substitutes in place of this historical 
conception the abstraction: ‘‘ the present communion of the blessed dead. 
with God, as it is on this side of the end of things ;” but the upper, the 
paradise of God (Rev. ii. 7 ; Enoch xxv. 1) in heaven, where God’s dwell- 
ing is. This distinction is one given historically, and necessary for the 
understanding of the passage, and is rightly maintained also by Osiander, 
Hahn, and others. Comp. the Rabbinical passages in Eisenmenger, entdecht. 
Judenth, I. 296 ff., and generally, Thilo, ad Hv. Nic. 25, p. 748 ff. ; Gfrérer, 
Jahrh. d. Heils, U1. p. 42 ff. The idea, however, that Christ has carried the 
believing souls out of Hades with Him to heaven (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 
414) goes beyond Scripture, and is not presupposed even in this passage. — 
appyta phuara| an oxymoron :' dicta nefanda dictu, speakings, which may not 
be spoken (Dem. 1369. 25, 1370. 14 ; Soph. O. R. 465 ; Eur. Hel. 1370; and 
Pflugk in loc.), i.e. which may not be made the subject of communication 
to others. The revelations which Paul received were so sublime and holy, 
that the further communication of them would have been at variance with 
their character ; what was disclosed to him was to be for him alone, for his 
special enlightenment, strengthening, comforting, with a view to the fulfil- 
ment of his great task ; to others it was to remain a mystery, in order to 
preclude fanatical or other misuse ; comp. Calvin. That dappyra here does 
not mean quae dici nequeunt (Plato, Soph. p. 238 C), as Beza, Estius, Calovius, 
Wolf, and many others, including Billroth and Olshausen, hold (Riickert is 
not decided), is shown by the solemn epexegetical @ ovk éév avbporw Aari- 
oa. in which é&év means Jicet, fas est, and is not—as Luther and many older 
and later commentators, including Billroth and Olshausen, wish to take it, 
quite at variance with the signification of the word—equivalent to dévarov. 
The Vulgate aptly renders : ‘‘ et audivit arcana verba, quae non Jicet hom- 
ini loqui,” @.e. which a man may not utter aloud. Lucian, Epigr. 11 (Jacobs, 
Del. epigr. VIL. 66) : apparov éxéwv yidoon odpnyic érixeicdw, Soph. Hl. 1000, 
Aj. 213. Comp. Rev. x. 3 f. —dv8pérw] for they are reserved only for 
divine communication ; a man, to whom they are revealed, may not utter 
them. (z°)—As to what it was that Paul heard for himself, the Fathers and 
schoolmen made many conjectures after their fashion. See Cornelius 3 
Lapide and Estius. Theodoret well says: airic oidev 6 tavta teSeapuévoc.” 
From whom as the organ of communication he heard it, remains veiled in 
apocalyptic indefiniteness. Revealing voices (comp. Rev. J.c.) he did hear. 

Ver. 5. On behalf of the one so constituted I will boast, but on behalf of 
myself, etc. Paul abides by his representation begun in ver. 2, according to 
which he speaks of himself as of a third person. The reader understood 
him! to the effect, namely, that apart from that difference of persons under- 


1 See regarding similar juxtapositions in tothink of disclosures regarding the end of 
general, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229 f. Comp. the world, which however, must have gone 
plat. Conv. p. 189 B: appyta éorw Ta cipnueva, further than what occurs in the Epistles of 
Soph. Qed. Col. 1005: pynrov appnrov, Aj. 218: the apostle (as 1 Thess. iv.; 1 Cor. xv.; 
Advev appyntov, Rom. xi. 25 f.). More definite statements 

2Jt is most natural (comp.the Apocalypse) (see Ewald) must be left in abeyance. 


678 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


lying the mere representation,the essential meaning of imép row rovotrov kav- 
yjooua. was the same as if Paul had written : 7d rotro (or év tO ToLobTw) 
cavyhooua. But this may not mislead us, with Luther, Mosheim, Zachariae, 
Heumann, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, to take rovoirov as neuter; for in 
favour of the view that it is masculine (so after Chrysostom, most expositors, 
including Flatt, Fritzsche, Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, 
Hofmann) we may decisively urge not merely 7d, rto:odryv, vy. 2 and 38, as 
well as the personal contrast in éuavroi, and the otherwise marred symmetry 
of the whole mode of representation (see Fritzsche, Diss. Il. 124), but also 
trép, Which with cavyaoa: denotes the person for whose advantage (see on v. 
12), not simply in regard to whom (Hofmann), the boast is made ; the thing 
is afterwards by év expressly distinguished from the person. The objection 
of Riickert, that Paul might not push the conception so far! is quite invalid, 
since, in fact, the readers, if they once knew that from ver. 2 onward he 
meant himself, could not at all misunderstand him. — ¢ pu is not for éav pA 
(Riickert), but it introduces an actually existing exception to that principle * 
brép guavtov ob Kavyjooua. It is, however, neither necessary nor justifiable 
to supply with tz. éu. ov xavy. : ‘of the visions and revelations which I 
have had,” so that ei “7 would form an inexact contrast (de Wette), since 
Paul, quite in harmony with xi. 380, absolutely denies that he wishes to 
boast on behalf of his own self otherwise than only of his weaknesses (comp. 
xi. 380). Self-glorying otherwise is only then to take place on his part, 
when his own Ego (his work, toil, merit, etc.) does not come at all into 
consideration, but he is merely the dependent, receptive instrument of the 
Lord, and appearsas a third person, on behalf of whom the xcavyao0m takes 
place. The plural aoSev. denotes the various situations and manifestations, 
in which his feebleness presents itself. (‘) 

Ver. 6. Tap] is not indeed or however (Flatt and others), nor are we, with 
Riickert, to supply a yév after éav ; but the thought, for which ydp assigns 
the reason, is—by a frequent usage very natural with the lively train of 
thought (see especially, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 464 ff. ; Baeumlein, Partih. 
p- 83 f.)—as resulting of itself, not expressly set forth ; it is implied in the 
ov Kav Yhooual ei uy K.T.A., in so far as these words presuppose that Paul could 
boast, if he would. In reference to this he continues : for in case I possibly 
shall have wished, etc. Comp. Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568]. Osiander 
wrongly refers yap to the jirst half of ver. 5 ; for the second half contains 
the leading thought and the progressive point of the passage. According 
to Ewald, Paul means the time of judgment, when ‘he shall wish really to 
glory, whereas now he refrains. In this case he must have subsequently at 
least written viv dé geidoua in order to be understood, and even then the © 
reference of the YeAgow to the day of judgment, in the absence of any 
express designation of the latter, would only be very indirectly indicated. — 
éav| does not stand for «av any more than at x. 8 (in opposition to Riickert). 
— ovk éoouat ddpwv| glancing back to xi. 1, 16 ff., but spoken now in entire 


! Kavxjooua, namely, expresses a princi- others would take it: “Futurum pro 
ple to be followed, not as Grotius and  ~potentiali. .. gaudere et exultare possem.” 


/ 


CHAPS MIL f 679 
seriousness, expressing thefolly of the vaunting which injures the truth. — 
geidowat 0é] SC. TOD Kavyaoda, t.€. but I keep it back, make no use of it. Comp. 
Xen: Cyr. i. 6, 35, iv. 6. 19 ; Soph. Aj. 115 ; Pind. Nem. ix. 20. 47; LXX. 
Job xxxili. 18; Wisd. i. 11 ; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 488 ; Porson, ad Hur. Or. 
387. — ph Tec el¢ éué Aoyionrat k.T.A. | Purpose of the @eidouac dé : in order that 
no one may judge in reference to me beyond that, as which he sees me (i.e. supra 
id quod vidit esse me, Beza), or what he possibly hears from me (out of my 
moutl , é.e. in order that no one may form a higher opinion of me than is 
suggested to him by his being eye-witness of my actions, or by his being, it 
may be, an ear-witness of my oral ministry. Many in Corinth found his 
action powerless and his speech contemptible (x. 10) ; but he wished still 
to call forth no higher judgment of himself than one consonant to experience, 
‘which could not but spontaneously form itself ; hence he abstains from the 
kavyaoda, although he would speak the truth with it. On Aoyionra, comp. 
xi. 5; Phil. iii. 18 ; 1 Cor-iv. 1, al. Ewald ‘takes it ; in order that no one 
may put to my account. This, however, would be expressed by wf ric éuol 
doyic. -—'The ri (possibly) is to be explained as a condensed expression : sé 
quid quando audit. See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 124; Schaefer, ad Dem. IV. 
p- 232 ; Bremi, ad Aesch. II. p.122f. On é& éuov, comp. Herod. ili. 62, and 
the Latin audio ex or dealiquo. See Madvig, ad Cic. Fin. p. 865. 

Ver. 7. xai] is the simple copula, not even (Fritzsche). The course of 
thought, namely, is: For this reason I abstain from kavyao0a (ver. 6), and 
—to return now to what I said in vv. 1-5—as concerns those revelations 
which I, though without self-glorying, leave not unmentioned (ver. 5), 
care is taken of this, that I do not vaunt myself on this distinction. — 77 
brepBory Tov aroxad.| Dativus instrumenti: because the revelations imparted 
to me have a character so exceeding,—a nature transcending so utterly all 
the bounds of whatis ordinary. The order of the words is inverted, in order 
to make the whole attention of the reader dwell on rq imepf. 7. droxad., to 
which the discourse here returns.’ Comp. ii. 4; Gal. ii. 10, al. See on 
Rom. xi. 31. — 2699 wor oxdd0w tH capKi x.7.A.] ‘Ex alto habuit revela- 
tionem, ex profundo castigationem,”’ Bengel. It is not to be connected so 
as also to take in iva dyyedog Zar. we xoAad. (Knapp), nor is oxdAow to be con- 


1 Lachmann, who has adopted 66 before stav dmoxadvWewv. Ewald follows Lach- 


tva (see the critical remarks), puts the 
whole of ver. 6, €av . . . €& €uod, in a paren- 
thesis, and places a full stop after azoxa- 
Avpwewv in ver. 7,so that «. TH vmepB. 7. 
amoxaA. goes with «i my ev tats acdeveias 
(Lachmann has struck out pov, but on too 
slender authority) in ver. 5, and 6d tva uy 
Umepaipwuat begins a new sentence. But 
in that case not only would kai ry vrepBodrAn 
Tov atokad,. come in haltingly after a very 
isolated and, as it were, forlorn fashion, 
but Paul would have given to the paren- 
thesis and illogical position. Logically he 
must have written: tmép 6Sé géuavtod ov 
Kavx7joomat (cav yap deAjow kavxjoacdar... 
€& €“00) € pH ev Tals AodEveiats Kal TH YTEPBOAH 


mann’s reading, but, not assuming any pa- 
renthesis, attaches kai ty umepB. T@V atoKaa, 
tO “7H TLs Els Eve Aoylontar x.7T.A., and that in 
the sense : even by these abundant disclosures 
led astray, if [should express myself,namely, 
as to their contents. But apart from the con- 
sideration that Paul would have expressed 
such a sense too unintelligibly by the mere 
dative and without more precise definition, 
utterances regarding the contents of the 
amoxadvwers, had he made them, would have 
fallen within the category of what is 
denoted by 7 axover ri e& Exod, and conse- 
quently in so far the logical accuracy of »y 
Tis eis ee Aoy. x.7.A. Would fail. 


680 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


sidered as a prefixed apposition, and dyyeAo¢ Zar. as subject (Tertullian, and 
probably also Chrysostom, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 127). For it may be 
urged against the former, that an inappropriate relation of meaning would 
result from it ; and against the latter, which Hofmann has again preferred, 
that there is no reason whatever for departing from the usual order of the 
words, since even with it the wa we xoAad. applies to the angel of Satan. 
The ordinary construction isto be retained as the simplest and most natural ; 
according to this, dyyeAo¢ Zar. appears as an appositional more precise defini- 
tion of oxdAow tH capi : there was given to me a thorn for my flesh, an angel of 
Satan.—id63n] by whom ? The wsual answer, given also by Riickert, Olshausen 
(‘‘the educating grace of God”), Ewald, is: by God. See especially, Au- 
gustine, de nat. et grat. 27: ‘* Neque enim diabolus agebat, ne magnitudine 
revelationum Paulus extolleretur, et ut virtus ejus proficeretur, sed Deus. 
Ab illo igitur traditus erat justus colaphizandus angelo Satanae, qui per 
eum tradebat et injustos ipsi Satanae.” Certainly iva py imepaipwua is the 
purpose not of the devil, but of the divine will, without which the suffering 
in question inflicted by the devil on the apostle could not affect him ; but 
just because the latter has thought of the devil as the one from whom that 
suffering proceeded, he must have conceived him also as the giver, because 
otherwise his mode of representation would be self-contradictory. Doubt- 
less Satan is only the mediate giver,! who thereby is to serve the divine final 
aim iva uy bap. ; but the explanation, that Paul had wished to say (?) that 
God had permitted (so also Chrysostom and Theophylact) Satan to torment 

him (Billroth) is a quite arbitrary alteration of what Paul actually says. 
- His meaning is rather, and that expressed in an active form: Satan has 
given to me a thorn for the flesh, in order to torment me with it—which 
has the moral aim ordained in the divine counsel, that I should not vaunt 
myself. —oxdéAop] only here in the N. T. It may mean stake, fbAov o£b, 
Hesychius (Homer, JJ. viii. 348, xv. 1, xviii. 177 ; Herod. ix. 97; Xen. 
Anab. v. 2. 5), but also thorn (Lucian, Mere. cond. 3; LXX. Hos. ii. 6; 
Ezek. xxviii. 24 ; Num. xxxii. 55 ; Ecclus. xliti. 19, and Fritzsche in loc., 
Dioscor. in Wetstein), as, indeed, it may also denote anything pointed, 
splinters, ridges, etc. The Vulgate has stumulus. Itis here commonly taken 
as stake, many, like Luther, thinking of a penal stake.* Comp. cxodorifa, 
impale, dvackoAori~w, Herod. i. 128. But as the conception of a stake fixed 
in his flesh has something exaggerated and out of keeping about it, and as 
the figurative conception of a thorn pressed into the flesh with acute pain 
might very naturally occur to him from the LXX. (Num. xxxiii. 55 ; Ezek. 
XXVlii. 24), the latter signification is to be preferred. Comp. Artem. iii. 
33: dxavGa: Kat oxdAorec ddbvac onuaivovor bid TO O&b. —TH capki is most natu- 
rally attached to oxéAow as an appropriating datiwe (comp. Castalio) : a thorn 
Sor the flesh, which is destined to torment that sensuous part of my nature 
which lusts to sin (é specie, to self-exaltation). Fritzsche, who, with 


1Comp. Hofmann: “an evil which be- 2In the gloss: ‘‘It is a stake, where 
falls him in accordance with God’s will, but people are impaled, or crucified, or 
through the working of aspiritual power hanged,” 
opposed to God.”’ 


CHAP. PRINT. 7. 681 


Winer, Osiander, and Buttmann, takes 7 capxi as defining more precisely 
the part of joz (see as to the cyfua ka®’ bAov Kai wépoc, More used by the poets, 
Nigelsbach on the JJ. ii. 171, ili. 438 ; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 266 ; Jacobs, 
Delect. Hpigr. p. 162, 509 ; Kthner, II. p. 145), objects that 77 capxi seems 
inappropriate, because it is inconceivable that a oxdéAoy should torment the 
soul, and not the body. But this objection would apply, in fact, to 
Fritzsche’s own explanation, and cannot at all hold good, partly because it 
is certainly possible to think figuratively of a cxdAo tormenting the soul (see 
- Artemid. J.c., where, among the figurative references of dxavtai x. oxddorec, 
he also adduces: «al ¢pdvtidac Kai Atrracg did 70 Tpayb), partly because odpF 
does not denote the body absolutely, or only according to its susceptibility 
(Hofmann), but according to its sinful quality which is bound up with the odpé. 
The objection, on the other hand, that salutary torment is not the business 
of an angel of Satan (Hofmann), leaves out of consideration the divine tele- 
ology in the case ; comp. on 1 Cor. v. 5.—dyyedo¢ Larav] Paul considers 
his evil, denoted by oxéAow r+. c., as inflicted on him by Satan, the enemy of 
the Messiah, as in the N. T. generally the devil appears as the originator of 
all wickedness and all evil, especially also of bodily evil (Hahn, Jeol. d. 
NV. T. 1. p. 872 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 462). By the addition of ayyeroc 
Lar. in apposition to cxddow r. o. the cxdAow is personified, and what is an 
épyov of Satan appears now, under the apostle’s vivid, concrete mode of 
view, an angel of Satan. The interpretation which takes the indeclinable 
Zarav,* occurring only here in the N. T. (see, however, LXX. 1 Kings xi. 
14, 23, 25 ; Aq. Jobi. 6), as the genitive, is the usual and right one. For 
if Zarav be taken as a nominative, it must either be a nomen proprium: the 
angel Satan (Billroth), or it would have to be taken adjectivally : a@ hostile 
angel (Cajetanus and others, including Flatt). But the latter is against the 
standing usage of the N. T., into which TOW has passed only as a nomen 
proprium. Against the former no doubt Fritzsche’s reason is not decisive: 
‘‘sic neminem relinqui, qui ablegare Satanam potuerit” (comp. Riickert), 
since Satan in his original nature was an angel, and might retain that ap- 
pellation without the point of view of the sending coming further into con- 
sideration ; nor can we, with Olshausen, urge the absence of the article, 
since dyy. Zar. might have assumed the nature of a proper name; but the 
actual usage is against it, for Satan, so often as he occurs in the N. T., is 
never named dyyedoc (Rev. ix. 11 is not to the point here, see Diisterdieck 
in loc.), which was a very natural result of the altered position of the devil, 
who, from being an dyyedoc before, had become the prince (Eph. ii. 2) of his 
kingdom, and now had angels of his own (Matt. xxv. 41, comp. Barnab. 
18). —iva pe koAagify| design of the giver in éd60y wor x.t.A. : in order that 
he may buffet me (Matt. xxvi. 67 ; 1 Cor. iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 20). The present 
denotes the still subsisting continuance of the suffering. See Theophyl. : 
ovy iva arak& pe Kodadion, aad’ aei. Comp. Chrysostom. The subject is ayyedoc 
Larav, as indeed often the continuation of the discourse attaches itself to 


1 Sarava, read by Lachmann and Riickert on the authority of A* B D* F GN* 67**, is 
a correct interpretation. 


682 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the apposition, not to the subject proper. See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 143 f. 
Fritzsche himself, indeed, regards oxéAop as the subject,’ and assumes that 
the vivid conception of the apostle has transferred to the subject what 
properly belongs only to the apposition, to which view he had been moved 
by the similar sound of oxéAow and xoAagign, as well as by the personification 
of oxdAow. But how easily might he have found a word which would have 
suited the conception of the personified oxédo~, and would not have been 
inappropriate to the apposition dyy. Zar. ! But in fact he has chosen a 
word which does not suit oxdAow at all, and suits ayy. Sar. exclusively, and 
hence we are not warranted in denying that the word belongs to ayy. Zar. 
Besides, this connection is most naturally suggested by the relations of the 
sense ; for only by iva pe xoAad. does ayy. Sar. come to be a complete appo- 
sition to oxéAoy 7. o., Inasmuch as the element of pain in the case expressed in 
oxdAop 7. o. is not yet implied in the mere ayy. Yarav, but is only added by 
iva pe KoAad. — iva py irepaipwouar] paedagogic aim of God’s guidance in this 
koAagiferv. See above. The deviland his angels serve, against their inten- 
tion, the intention of God. See Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 382 f. In the 
repetition of the same words there is expressed the deeply felt importance 
of this telic destination. See Heindorf, ad Phaed. p. 51 ff. ; Matthiae, p. 
1541. Comp. also Bornemann, Schol. in loc. p. xxxix. — Lastly, as con- 
cerning the thing itself, which Paul denotes by oxéAo r. o. «.7.2., It was 
certainly known by the Corinthians from their personal acquaintance with 
Paul without any more precise indication ; to us at least any special indica- 
tion has been denied. Fora great host of attempts at explanation, some of 
them very odd, see Poole’s Synopsis ; Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 518 ff. ; Wolf, 
Cur. The opinions are in the main of three kinds: (1) that Paul means 
spiritual assaults of the devil (what are called injectiones Satanae), who sug- 
gested to him blasphemous thoughts (Gerson, Luther, Calovius), stings of 
conscience over his earlier life (Luc. Osiander, Mosheim ; also Osiander, who 
includes also a bodily suffering), and the like. The Catholics, however, to 
whom such an exposition, favouring forms of monastic temptation, could 
not but be welcome, thought usually of enticements of Satan (awakened, ac- 
cording to Cardinal Hugo, by association with the beautiful Thecla !)”* to 
unchastity (Thomas, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
many others, and still Bisping), for which Augustine and Theophylact are 
often wrongly quoted as vouchers. (2) That Paul means the temptations on 
the part of his opponents* engaged in the service of Satan (xi. 138, 15), or the 
temptations and troubles of his apostolic ofjice in general (Theodoret, Pelagius, 
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Fritzsche, Schrader, 
Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 401). (8) That Paul means a very severe bodily 


1Comp. Augustine, Conc. 2 in Ps. Iviii.: 
** Accepit apost. stimulum carnis, a quo cola- 
phizaretur.”” 

2 See, regarding this mythical association, 
the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischend. Act. 
apocr. p. 40 ff. 

3So Chrysostom and others. Many 
among these, because of the singular, think 


specially of one pre-eminently hostile an- 
tagonist. So, among the ancient expositors, 
Oecumenius, and, among the modern, sév- 
eral cited by Wolf, and also Semler and 
Stolz. Chrysostom and Theophylact name, 
by way of example, the smith Alexander, 
Hymenaeus, and Philetus. 


OHAP,. XII.,.7. 683 


suffering (Augustine and many others, including Delitzsch and Hofmann), 
in connection with which conjecture has lighted on a variety of ailments, 
such as hypochondriac melancholy (Bartholinus, Wedel, and others), pain in 
the head (rivec already in Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Oecumenius, 
and Jerome, ad Gal. iv. 14, mention it ; so also Teller), haemorrhoids (Ber- 
tholdt), ‘‘ falling sickness or something similar” (Ewald, Hofmann), epileptic 
attacks of cramp (Ziegler, Holsten), and several others. — Against No. 1 we 
cannot urge t# capxi, since the devil’s influence would have, in operating on 
the moral consciousness, to start certainly from the cadpé, where the prin- 
ciple of sin has its seat (Rom. vii.), but we may urge oxédow and iva pe Kodad., 
figurative expressions which evidently portray an acute and severe pain. 
Besides, under such a constant spiritual influence of the devil, Paul would 
not appear in a manner in keeping with his nature wholly filled by Christ 
(see especially, Gal. ii. 20), and with his pneumatic heroism. Enticements 
to unchastity are not even to be remotely thought of on account of 1 Cor. 
vii. 7 ; it would be an outrage on the great apostle. Against No. 2 it is to 
be remarked that here a suffering quite peculiar must be meant, as a counter- 
poise to the quite peculiar distinction which had accrued to him by the 
brepBody Tov aroxaAtpew. Besides, adversaries and official troubles belonged 
necessarily to his calling (see especially, iv. 7 ff., vi. 4 ff.), as, indeed, he 
had these in common with a// true preachers of Christ, and knew how to 
find an honour in them (comp. Gal. vi. 17) ; hence he would certainly not 
have besought the taking away of these sufferings, ver. 8. It is believed, no 
doubt, that this explanation may be shown to suit the context by ver. 9 
compared with ver. 10 (see especially, Fritzsche, p. 152 f.), but dodéveca in 
vv. 9 and 10 expresses only the category, to which also that special suffering 
belonged. Accordingly No. 3 remains at all events as the most probable, 
namely, the hypothesis that Paul bore in his person some kind of painful, 
chronic bodily evil, which seemed to him as inflicted by Satan.’ Only this 
evil cannot at all be specified more precisely than that it made itself felt in 
its paroxysms by shocks of pain, which might be compared to blows ; but 
in what part of the body it had its seat (possibly proceeding from the head) 
cannot with certainty be inferred from xoAagifecv, since this word, like the 
more correct Greek kovdvaifew, denotes buffeting with the fist. More spe- 
cific conjectures are mere fancies, are liable to be enlisted in the service of 
tendency-criticism (Holsten, who attaches to this suffering the disposition to 
visionary conditions), and come to some extent into sharp collision. with 
the fact of the apostle’s extraordinary activity and perseverance amid bodily 
hardships. The hypothesis of a bodily suffering, with the renunciation of 
any attempt to specify it more precisely, is rightly adhered to, after older 
expositors, by Emmerling, Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette, Beyschlag, eé¢ al. 


1 In this respect, too, we find a parallel in ostom exclaims against the view of a 
the history and mode of view of Luther, bodily evil (kefadadyia): wn yévouro: ov yap av 
who, as is well known, suffered from yvio- 17d cpa Tod IlavAov tats Tod StaBodAov xepoiv 
lent attacks of stone (which visited him with €&ed60n, Omov ye avTos O SiaBodros éemiTaymare 
especial severity on the Convention at wpovor elkey aito IlavAw, An argument nimi- 
Schmalkald), and likewise ascribed this um probans | 
suffering to the devil as its author.—Chrys- 


684 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(though Riickert here also appeals to the alleged traces of sickness in our 
Epistles, such as 1 Cor. ii. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 12, as well as to Gal. iv. 13-15) ; 
while others, as Neander and Billroth, content themselves with an utter 
non liquet, although the former is inclined to think of inward temptations.’ 

Vv. 8, 9. ‘Yxép tobrov] in reference to whom, namely, to this angel of Satan. 
That robrov is masculine (comp. ver. 3), not neuter (Vulgate, Luther, Flatt, 
Osiander, and others), is evident from the fact that iva aroary an’ éucd follows 
without any other subject. On the latter, comp. Luke iv. 13 ; Acts v. 38, 
xxii. 29. —rpic] is taken since Chrysostom’s time by many as equivalent to 
roAAdakic ; but quite arbitrarily, and not at all in keeping with the small 
number! No; Paul relates historically, as it really happened, leaving it » 
withal undetermined what intervals had elapsed between these invocations. 
At his first and second appeal to the Lord no answer was made ; but when 
he had made a third appeal, the answer came. And that he thereupon did 
not entreat again, was understood of itself from his faithful devotion to Him, 
whose utterance he had now received. According to Billroth, rpic is 
intended to intimate a thrice-repeated sucewmbing to that pain, a thrice- 
repeated utter dejection, which, however, is sheer fancy. — 7dr ktpiov] not 
God (Calvin, Neander, and others), but Christ (see ver. 9), who is, in fact, 
the heavenly advancer of His kingdom and mighty vanquisher of Satan.? — 
elpnxé pot] The perfect, which Riickert finds surprising, is what is quité com- 
monly used of the continued subsistence of what has been done: he has 
spoken, and I have now this utterance abidingly valid. (87) Accordingly the 
evil itself is to be regarded as still adhering to the apostle. How he received 
the answer, the ypyyartiouds (Matt. i. 12; Luke ii. 6; Acts x. 22), from 
Christ (by some kind of inward speaking, or by means of a vision, as 
Holsten holds), is entirely unknown to us. — apxei coe 7) yapic pov) there suffices 
Jor thee my grace, more thou needest not from me than that I am gracious to 
thee. In this isimplied the refusal of the prayer, but at the same time what 
a comforting affirmation! ‘‘Gratia esse potest, etiam ubi maximus doloris 
sensus est,” Bengel. Riickert (comp. Grotius) takes yapic quite generally as 
good-will ; but the good-will of the exalted Christ is, in fact, always grace 
(comp. xii. 13 ; Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 15), and made itself known espe- 
cially in the apostle’s consciousness as grace, 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, and often. A 
special gift of grace, however (Chrysostom : the gift of miracles), is arbitra- 
rily imported. —7 yap dbvapic pov x«.7.A.] for my strength is in weakness per- 
Jected. The emphasis lies on divauie: ‘‘Thou hast enough in my grace ; 
for Tam not weak and powerless, when there is suffering weakness on the 
part of the man to whom I am gracious, but exactly under these circum- 
stances are my power and strength brought to perfection, é.e. effective in full 
measure.” Then, namely, the divine dévayic of Christ has unhindered scope, 
not disturbed or limited by any admixture of selfish striving and working. 


1 The most strange interpretation of the 2 The invocation of Christ has reference 
passage is given by Redslob in the Progr. also here to the intercessory work of the 
ad. Hamb. Gymnas. 1860, who goes so far as Lord. Comp. on Rom. x. 12; Rich. Schmidt, 
to make out of it a jesting designation of Paul. Christol. p. 127 f. 

Silvanus (19D, Ezek. xxviii. 24)! 


dl CHAP, XII., 10. ; 685 


\ 
‘ 


The relation is similar in 1 Cor. ii.4f. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 7. With the read- 
ing without ov (see the critical remarks), which Hofmann too prefers, there 
would result the quite general proposition : ‘‘for power there attains to its 
full efficacy, where weakness serves it as the means of its self-exertion” (as 
Hofmann puts it)—a proposition, which is only true when the divawe is dif- 
Jerent from the ability of the weak subject, and can work with all the less 
hindrance amidst the powerlessness of the latter. Hence, for the truth of the 
proposition and in keeping with the context (comp. ver. 9), the specification 
of the subject for 7 divayic cannot at all be dispensed with. — 7#dcora ob uardov 
Kavyfooua «.t.A.] the altered tone proceeding from that answer of Christ. 
Grotius? and others, including Emmerling, join wa220v with jd.ora, although 
padaov is used to heighten the comparative, but not the superlative (see on vil. 
13). Estius (comp. previously, Erasmus) findsin waAAov : ‘‘magis ac potius, 
quam in ulla alia re, qua videar excellere ;” Bengel and Billroth : # év raic¢ 
aroxaAtweow ; Riickert : more than of what I can (my talents and perform- 
ances) ; comp. also Ewald. But against all this is the consideration that 
Paul must have written : waAdov év taic dodeveiac wou kavygooua. As the text 
stands, aAdov belongs necessarily to xcavyfoouac (comp. vil. 7), not to its 
object. And the reference of uaAdov is furnished by the context. Previously, 
namely, Paul had stated how he had prayed the Lord to take away his suf- 
fering. Now, however, after mentioning the answer received, he says : 
With the utmost willingness (maxima cum voluptate, comp. ver. 15) there- 
fore will I, encouraged by the word of the Lord which I have, only all the 
more (comp. on vil. 7) glory in my weaknesses ; all the more boldly will I now 
triumph in my states of suffering, which exhibit me in my weakness ; comp. 
Rom. v. 3, viii. 35 ff. More than would have been otherwise the case, is the 
courage of the xavyaoda: év taig aodeveiarc increased in him by that utterance 
of the Lord. (c’) —iva érioxnvécy x.t.A.] Aim of the paAdov Kxavyfoouae K.7.A. 
And the Lord’s answer itself has, in fact, placed this goal before his eyes, and 
assured him of his reaching it. The ém’ éué is conceived of as : may take its 
abode on me, t.e. may come down before me and unite itself with me for abid- 
ing protection, comfort, strengthening, etc.? The choice of the word érickyy. 
leads us to conclude that he has conceived of the case as analogous to the 
Shechinah (comp. on John i. 14, xiv. 23). The direction from above down- 
ward is not withal implied in éri by itself, which rather indicates direction 
in general (comp. Polyb. iv. 18. 8: érickyvoiv éxi tag oixiac, to go into 
quarters in the houses), but is given in the context. Comp. Ps. civ. 12. (c’) 

Ver. 10. Avé| because, namely, in such circumstances with such a mood the 
power of Christ joins itself with me. —eidoxo é acdev.| I take pleasure in 
weaknesses, bear them with inward assent and willingly, when they befall me. 
Comp. vii. 4. ‘‘Contumax enim adversus tormenta fides,” Tacitus, fist. 
i. 3; Seneca, de prov. iv. 4. aod. are here, asin the whole context, situ- 
ations of human powerlessness, brought about by allotted experiences of 


1 Grotius and Emmerling expressly, but of Christ to the ioxvew mavra (Phil. iy. 18) 
many others, as also Flatt and Olshausen, in its forms of ever-renewed heightening 
tacitly, by leaving »aAAov untranslated. and exaltation (Phil. iv. 16). Comp. 2 Cor. 

2 That is the holy évévvapovc0a by means ivi. 4 ff.; Rom. viii. 37 ff. 


686 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

, 
suffering. Afterwards four, partly more, partly less, special kinds of such 
situations are adduced. Rickert, quite at variance with the context, under- 
stands diseases to be meant. — év iBpeowv] passive : in cases of arrogant treatment, 
which I experience. On the plural, comp. Plato, Legg. i. p. 627 A ; Dem. 
522.13; Ecclus. x. 8. They bring into necessities (avayx.); and persecutions 
drive into straitened positions (crevoy.),out of which no issue is apparent (comp. 
on iv. 8). —imép Xpioroi] belongs neither to all five elements (so usually), 
nor simply to the last four points (Hofmann) but to evdoxi : for Christ’s 
sake, because by such sufferings His honour and His work are promoted. 
That Paul meant sufferings for Christ, was, indeed, self-evident. But he 
wishes to assign the specific motive for his evdoxé. —rére dbvarée eiuc| inwardly 
through Christ’s power. See vv. 8, 9. rére, then, is emphatic, here with the 
feeling of victoriousness. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54; Col. iii. 4; Hom. Z7. xi. 
191 f., 206 f.; Plato, Ph7l. p. 17 D, Conv. p. 192 B. On the idea, comp. 
the expression of Moses in Philo, Vit. M. 1, p. 613 B : 7d dodevic iuav dbva- 
ple Eotev. 

Ver. 11. Paul now comes to a stand, and surveys how much he has said — 
in commendation of himself from chap. xi. onward. This retrospect ex- _ 
torts from him the admission: yéyova a¢pwr, but as respects its contents he 
at once proceeds to justify himself, and to impute the blame to the readers. 
It is not to be taken either as a question or in the sense of a hypothetical pro- 
tasis (Hofmann gives a choice between the two). The twei¢ x.7.2., asyn- 
detic, but all the more striking, gives no ground for such a weakening of 
the meaning. — yéyova dd¢pwr| ironical exclamation ; for it is clear from xi. 
16, xii. 6, that Paul did not really regard his apologetic xavyaoda: hitherto, 
as a work of folly. But the opponents took it so! In the emphatically 
prefixed yéyova (comp. v. 17) there is implied : it has come to pass that I am 
a fool! This now subsists as accomplished fact! ‘‘ Receptui canit,” 
Bengel. —tyueic we qvayxdcate’ ty yap «.t.A.| This justifies him and blames 
the Corinthians for that yéyova adp. The emphatic tyeic, and afterwards the 
éy@, the emphasis of which Riickert failed to perceive, correspond to each 
other significantly : you have compelled me ; for J had a claim to be com- 
mended by you, instead of commending myself. The stress is on %¢’ tuév, 
next to the éyé, In which there is a side-glance at the pseudo-apostles, 
boastful themselves, and boasted of by their partisans. — ovdév yap borépyoa 
x.t.4.] Reason assigned for éya ddedov. See, moreover, on xi. 5. The 
aorist refers to the time of his working at Corinth. The negative form 
of expression is a pointed litotes. —ei kai oidév eiue] although Iam quite 
without value and without importance. The same humility asin 1 Cor. 
xv. 8-10. But how fraught with shame for the opposing party, with 
which those false apostles were of so great account! And in this way 
the significant weight of this closing concessive clause is stronger and ° 
more telling than if it were attached as protasis to what follows (Hofmann). 
It is more striking. —In regard to ovdév eivat, see on 1 Cor. xill. 2; Gal. 
v1. 3. 

Ver. 12. Proof of the previous ovdév borépyoa trav brepa. axoot : The signs, 
indeed (yet without producing among you the due recognition) of the apostle 


CHAP. xir., 13. 687 


were wrought among you. The pév solitariwm leaves it to the reader to supply 
for himself the corresponding contrast, so that it may be translated by our 
truly, indeed. See especially, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 ; Maetzner, ad An- 
tiph. p. 153 ; Kiithner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1. The contrast to be supplied 
here is put beyond doubt by the idea of the oyueia which is placed emphat- 
ically and significantly at the head ; hence we must reject what Billroth 
(followed by Olshausen) supplies ; but even otherwise you can make no com- 
plaint about anything. —ra onueia Tod aroor. is that which divinely evinces the 
apostle to be such, that by which one discerns the apostle. ‘0 aréorodo¢ with 
the article does not denote the deal of an apostle (Billroth), which would be at 
variance with his humility, but the apostle im abstracto. Bengel says aptly : 
‘‘ejus, qui sit apostolus.” —xatepydodyn év buiv] namely, which I was with 
you. The J, however, retreats modestly behind the passive expression. 
The compound ‘‘perficere notat maxime rem arduam factuque difficilem,” 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107. —év rdon iouovg] the manner of the karecp- 
ydodn év buiv, strengthening the force of the proof: iz all manner of perse- 
verance, so that amidst adverse and painful circumstances there was perse- 
verance with all possible stedfastness in fully exhibiting these signs of an 
apostle. . The view followed by many older expositors since Chrysostom : 
“orimum signum nominat patientiam,” is erroneous, since the irouovy is 
not a specifically apostolic onueiov."— onusiow Kk. Tépact kal duvaueor| whereby 
those signs of an apostle were accomplished, so that onyefove is here meant 
in a narrower sense (miraculous signs) than the previous ta onueia. The 
three words in emphatic accumulation denote the same thing under the two 
different relations of its miraculous significance (onu. x. tép.) and of its nature 
(div. deeds of power, 1 Cor. xii. 10). Comp. 2 Thess. 11. 9; Heb. i. 4; 
Acts li. 22. The notions of oyjyeia and répara are equivalent. See on Rom. 
xv. 19.— Paul therefore wrought miracles also in Corinth, and wrought 
them as credentials of his apostleship (Heb. ii. 4). Comp. Rom. xv. 19; 
Acts xv. 12. —On the accumulation of terms, comp. Cic. Tse. 11. 40. 26: 
‘His ego pluribus nominibus unam rem declarari volo, sed utor, ut quam 
maxime significem, pluribus.” Comp. also Cic. de Hin. ii. 4. 14; Nat. D. 
uu. 7. 18. — How at variance with our passage is the historical criticism, 
which lays down @ priori the negation of miracles ! (D’) 

Ver. 13. Ti yap éorw . . . tudv] Bitterly ironical justification of what was 
said in ver. 12. For what is there, in which you were placed at a disadvantage 
towards the other churches (in which I wrought), except, etc. ? that isto say : 
for in nothing have you-come behind, as compared with the other churches, 
except, etc. Quite arbitrarily Grotius limits this question, which embraces 
the whole blissful apostolic working, to the communication of gifts by the lay- 
ing on of hands. — ixép| means nothing else than beyond, but in the direction 
downward (reference to the minus) which yrrAdyre specifies. Comp. Winer, 
p. 376 [E. T. 502}. Riickert, overlooking the comparative sense of 7rr#FyrT«, 
says ; there is here an ironical confession that all churches had disadvantage 


i An appeal should not have been made to vi. 4, where in fact there stands the wider 
conception Geo dudKovor, 


688 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


from Paul, and it is only denied that the disadvantage of the Corinthian 
was greater than that of the other churches. This would not suit at all as 
assigning a reason for ver. 12. In assigning areason, Paul could not but say: 
ye have in nothing come off worse; but to say, for your disadvantage has not 
been greater, would, with all its irony, be inappropriate. On the accusative 
of more precise definition with #rr43n7e, comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 5: & yrrG@ro. 
The more usual construction is @ or év 6. — ei py bre «.7.2.] In this exception 
(‘‘ specie exceptionis firmat quod dicit,” Grotius) lies the painful bitterness 
of the passage, which in the request that follows yapicacGe «.7.2. becomes 
still sharper. It is the love, deeply hurt in its pure consciousness, that 
speaks. —aibroc éyo] I myself; this places his own person over against the 
apostolic services indicated in ti... y77#0yTe. Comp. in general on Rom. ix. 
3.. Riickert (so also Bengel) holds that Paul has already had in his mind 
what he subjoins in vv. 16-18. Such an arbitrary prolepsis of the reference 
is the more untenable, seeing that with vv. 14, 15 another train of ideas in- 
tervenes. — od xatevapxyca buoy] See on xi. 8. Only by the fact that he has 
not been burdensome to them in accepting payment and the like, has Paul as- 
serted himself as an apostle less among them than among the other churches ! 
For this injustice they are to pardon him ! 

Ver. 14. After that cutting irony comes the language of paternal earnest- 
ness, inasmuch as Paul once more (comp. xi. 9-12) assures them that even on 
his impending third arrival among them he will remain true to his principle 
of not burdening them, and explains why he will do so. — idot] vivid realiz- 
ing of the position in the changing play of emotion. — rpirov] emphatically 
prefixed, belongs to éA¥civ mpd¢ tuac (comp. xill. 1), not to éroiuwc Exo, as 
Beza, Grotius, Estius, Emmerling, Flatt, and others, also Baur (in the 
Theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, p. 189 ff.), Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f., would 
have it,’ since, according to the context, it was not on his third readiness to 
come that anything depended, but on the third arrival, for only as having 
arrived could he be burdensome to the readers. Comp. the Introd., and 
see Bleek in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff.; Neander, I. p. 414 ; Anger, 
Rat. temp. p. 71; Wieseler, Ohronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 233. Chrysostom 
aptly says: «at debrepov rapeyevdounyv Kai Tpitov TovTo mapeckevacpuat EAVEiv, Kal ov 
KaTavapkhow buav. — ov yap Cyto K.7.A. | for my endeavour is not directed to yours, 
but to you ; you yourselves (your wvyai, ver. 15)—namely, that I may win 
you for the salvation in Christ (Matt. xviii. 15 ; 1 Cor. ix. 19)—are the aim 
of my striving. ‘‘ Dictum vere apostolicum,” Grotius. Comp. Cic. de Fin. 
li. 26: ‘‘Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri su- 
mus.’”? Comp. also Phil. iv. 17. — ob yap dgeiAe x.7.A.] Confirmation of the 
principle previously expressed, from a rule of the natural rightful relations 
between parents and children ; for Paul was indeed the spiritual father of 
the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 15). The negative part of this confirmation cor- 
responds to ob (y7d ra budv, and the positive to the tuac ; for, while Paul 
Cytei abtobc (Not ta airav), he is the father, who gathers for his children 
treasures, namely, the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. — oi yoveic] se. 


1 See also Miarcker, Stellung d. Pastoralbr., Meiningen 1861, p. 13 f. 


CHAP. x1t., 15-18. | 689 


ddeidovor Syoavpiferv, not as Beza holds : Yyoavpifover ; for ddetdAec is not im- 
personal. That by the first half of the verse, moreover, the duty of children 
in love to support and provide for their parents is not excluded, is clear from 
the very Syoavpifev, and is just as obvious of itself as that in the second part 
the Sycavpifecv is not to be urged as a duty of parents (1 Tim. v. 8), but 
always has merely its relative obligation, subordinate to the higher spiritual 
care (Matt. vi. 33, vv. 19-21 ; Eph. vi. 4 ; Mark viii. 36). 
Ver. 15. Paul applies what was said generally in ver. 14: ob ydp ddeirer 
K.7.A. to himself (ty6, Ton my part: I, however, will very willingly spend and 
be spent for the good of your souls, in order, namely, to prepare them for the 
salvation of eternal life. (Heb., x. 39, xiii. 17; 1, Pet.,1. 95. Jas. 1. 21). 
Theodoret rightly says: éyé dé rév ¢boer ratépwov Kat TALOV Tt ToLEiv EmayyéAAOmat. 
— For examples of daravay (éx strengthens, Polyb. xxv. 8. 4, xxi. 8. 9, xvii. 
11. 10) used of the life, see Kypke, II. p. 272. On the subject-matter, comp. 
Horace, Od. i. 12. 38f.: ‘‘animaeque magnae prodigum Paullum.” — ei repio- 
cor. tylae ayarOv Frrov dyarouar| ci does not stand for ¢ cai (which is read by 
Elzevir and Tischendorf), for which Riickert takes it, but is the simple 7/, 
and that not even in the sense of é7eé or 671, as it is used ‘‘ ne quid confiden- 
tius, directius affirmetur” (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 195), but, as is here 
_ most in keeping with tender delicacy in the expression of a harsh thought, 
in the purely hypothetical sense : if, which I leave undecided, etc. In 
_ view of the possible case, that he finds the less love among his readers, the 
more he loves them (this is implied in the mutual reference of the two com- 
paratives, see Matthiae, § 455, Rem. 7),* the apostle will most gladly sacrifice 
his own (what he has from others, or even by his own work) and himself 
(comp. Rom. ix. 3; Phil. ii. 17) for their souls, in order that thus he may 
do his utmost to overcome this supposed—and possibly existing—dispropor- 
tion between his loving and being loved by stimulating and increasing the 
latter (Rom, xii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7). Hofmann, not observing the clever 
turn of the hypothetical expression of the thought, without reason finds this 
view absurd, and with sufficient crudeness and clumsiness takes «i to ayaro- 
pat as an independent question, to which Paul himself makes answer with 
éorw dé (in the sense : be it so withal, I will let it rest there). To this inter- 
rogative view Hofmann ought all the less to have resorted, seeing that in- 
terrogation in such an indirect form (Winer, p. 474 [E. T. 639], and see on 
Matt. xii. 10 ; Luke xiii. 23) is wholly without example in Paul, often as he 
has had an opportunity for using it. It is found often in Luke, more rarely 
in Matthew and Mark. Except in the writings of these three, the N. T. does 
not present that independent use of the indirectly interrogative ci. | 
Vv. 16-18. Refutation of the possible slander, which assuredly was also 
actually ventured on the part of his adversaries, that, if he had not himself 
directly burdened the Corinthians, he had still done so in a cunning way 
indirectly by means of his emissaries. —In ver. 16 Paul does not, indeed, 
speak in the person of his opponents, for otherwise, instead of éyé, he must 


1In opposition to Hofmann, who, not two comparatives, supplies with meproc.: 
attending to the correspondence of the than others, and with jrrov: than by others. 


690 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ~ 


have expressed himself in the third person ; but he clothes his speech in 
the words of his adversaries.’ (E’) — éorw dé] concessive : but be it so, it may, 
however, be the case that / have not oppressed you.. Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 
516 C, al. Kriiger, § 54, 4. 2) ; also the eiev, very common in classical writers, 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Huthyph. p. 18 D ; Reisig, ad Qed. Col. 1808, and for 
the similar use of the Latin esto, sit ita sane, Cicero, Tusc. i. 48. 102 ; De 
Fin, iv. 45. — éyo] my own person, — aaw irdpyov x.t.A.] no longer depends 
on éorw dé, but is the contrast—to be read as an exclamation—of égorw 0, 
éya ov kateBdp. buac : but cunningly I, etc. —dé62~] This would have been the 
case, if he had made plunder of them indirectly by a third hand. — éAafov| 
caught, figure taken from hunting. See on xi. 20. Comp. on déA@ AapuBav. 
Soph. Phil. 101, 107, 1266. — Vv. 17 and 18 now show in lively questions, 
appealing to the reader’s own experience, how untrue that aA” irapyov . . . 
éAaBov was. Have I then overreached you by one of those whom I sent to you ? 
namely, by claims for money, and the like. The construction is anacoluthic, 
inasmuch as Paul, for emphasis, prefixes absolutely the tiva dv dréoradxa 
mpoc duac as the object of what he wishes to say, and then subjoins the further 
statement independently of it, so that the accusative remains the more em- 
phatically pendent—a usage found also in classical writers. See Bernhardy, 
p. 183. — dv] robtwv ote. Comp. Rom. xv. 18. — In ver. 18 he now mentions, 
by way of example, Titus, whom he had encouraged to travel to Corinth, 
and his fellow-envoy, and he asks, significantly repeating ér/eovéxr. and pre- 
fixing it : Has Titus overreached you? This journey of Titus to Corinth is not, 
as is otherwise usually supposed, the one mentioned in chap. viii., which 
had yet to be made, and in which Titus had two companions (vill. 18, 22), 
but the one made soon after our first Epistle, and mentioned in chap. vii. 
The fact that Titus only is here mentioned, and not also Timothy (1 Cor. iv. 
17, xvi. 10), is made use of to support the opinion that Timothy had not 
come to Corinth at all (see the Introd.). Comp. Riick. pp. 380, 409. But 
how groundlessly |! From the long and close connection of the apostle with 
the Corinthians it may be even @ priori concluded, that he had sent vari- 
ous persons to Corinth beside Titus; and he himself testifies this by the 
plural é6v aréoradxa. But here he names only Titus instar omnium as the one 
last sent. Besides, it would not have been even proper to say : I have sent 
Timothy to you, since Timothy, in fact, was joint-sender of the letter (i. 1). 
— Tov adeiddr| the brother (fellow-Christian) well known to them (but unknown 
to us).? That in that mission he was quite subordinate to Titus is clear from. 
ouvaréor., and from the fact that in what follows the conduct ef Titus alone 
is spoken of. — 76 aitG rvedu.| with the same Spirit, namely, with the Holy 
Spirit determining our walk and excluding all rAcovefia. The dative is that 
of manner to the question how? Comp. Acts ix. 31, xxi. 21 ; Rom. xiii. 13. 
It may, however, also be just as fitly taken as dative of the norm (Gal. v.16, 


1 Let us conceive that they had asserted mimesis, which is almost a parody. 
regarding Paul : €oTw dé: avis ov KateBapyoev 2 According to Wieseler, Chronol. p. 349, 
vpask.7t.A. This Paul makes use of, inas- it was Tychicus, as also at viii. 22. This 
much as he, entering into their meaning, rests on a combination drawn from Titus 
says of himself, what they have said of him—a lil. 12. 


CHAP. XIt., 19. 691 


vi. 16). We cannot decide the point. If the inward agreement is denoted 
by 76 air rvevu., the likeness of outward procedure is expressed by roic¢ 
avtoig iyveot (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 276 Di: 16 rairov iyvog peridvte), But 
here the dative is local, as in Acts xiv. 16; Jude 11 (comp. Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. I. p. 225 f.). So Pind. Pyth. x. 20: éuBéBakev iyveow ratpdc, comp. 
with Nem. vi. 27 : iyveow év Upariduavtocg tov xéda véiuwr. Whose are the 
footsteps, in which the two walked ? The footsteps ef Paul in which Titus 
followed his predecessor (comp. Lucian, Herm. 73), so that they thereby 
became the same, in which both walked — said with reference to the unself- 
ishness maintained by both. The context does not yield any reference to 
Christ (1 Pet. 11. 21). 

Ver. 19. His vindication itself is now concluded. But in order that he 
may not appear, by thus answering for himself, to install the readers as 
judges over him, he further guards his apostolic dignity against this risk. 
Carrying them in mediam rem, he says: For long you have been thinking 
that we are answering for ourselves to you! Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 3. Correction 
of this opinion: Before God we speak in Christ ; it is God in presence of 
whom (as Judge) we speak in Christ’s fellowship (as the element in which 
we subsist and live). é» X. gives to Aadotuev its definite Christian character 
(which, with Paul, was at the same time the apostolic one). Comp. ii. 17. 
But, that he may not suppress the proper relation of his apology to the 
readers, he adds lovingly : but the whole, beloved, (we speak) for your editica- 
tion, for the perfecting of your Christian life. — md2ac doxeire bre byiv arroAoy. | 
After adopting the reading rd/a (see the critical remarks) this sentence is 
no longer to be taken interrogatively, because otherwise an unsuitable empha- 
sis would be laid on 7é2a. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Riickert have also 
deleted the mark of interrogation. méAa: means nothing else than for a long 
time, in which, however, the past to be thought of may be very short accord- 
ing to the relative nature of the notion of time, as e.g. Hom. Od. xx. 29% 
f.: poipay pév 7 Eeivog exer wddat, w¢ énéorxev, tonv, Plat. Gorg. p. 456 A ; 
Phaed. p. 63 D, al.; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 18 B; Xen. Anab. iv. 
8. 14, iv. 5. 5; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 481. So also the Latin dudum, 
jamdudum. Here the meaning is, that the readers are already for long, dur- 
ing the continuation of this apology, remaining of opinion, etc. As respects 
the connection with the present, see further, Plato, Phacdr. p. 273 C ; Xen, 
Anab. vii. 6. 87. There exists no reason for attaching raAa to ver. 18 (Hof- 
mann, then taking doxeire interrogatively), and it would, standing after iyveor, 
come in after a tame and dragging fashion, while it would have had its fit- 
ting position between ot and 7é airé. — ipiv] Dative of destination. Comp. 
Acts xix. 33 ; Plato, Protag. p. 359 D ; Pol. x. p. 607 B. Vobis, i.e. vodis 
judicibus, has here the chief emphasis, which Rtickert has aptly vindicated, 
The earlier expositors, not recognizing this, have accordingly not hit on the 
purpose and meaning of the passage ; as still Billroth: ‘‘It might seem 
that he wished to recommend himself” (comp. iii. 1, v. 12). To this his 
answer is: ‘‘I speak before God in Christ, i.e. my sentiments in what I say 
are not selfish, but upright and pure.” Comp. Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, 
Calvin, Grotius. —xarévavti tov teod év Xp. Aadoduev] to be taken togeth- 


692 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


er,as in ii, 17.— ra d8 rdvra] se. Aadovwev. Grotius and others, including 
Griesbach, Scholz, Olshausen, and Ewald, read rade as one word, and con- 
nect it with the previous Aajovwev. But for what end? The mode of ex- 
pression in the usual way of writing it is quite Pauline, and makes the im- 
portant thought more emphatically prominent ; éde never occurs with Paul, 
and the reference of rade to what goes before would at least not be in ac- 
cordance with the common usage (comp. on Luke x. 39). (F’) 

Ver. 201." Subjective justification of what was just said, irép tH¢ buoy 
oixodoug¢. For I fear to find you on my arrival such as have very great need 
of oixodou#. — The sharp lesson which he now gives his readers down to xiii. 
10, although introducing it not without tenderness to their feelings (¢oBoipuaz, 
and then the negative form of expression), could not but wholly cancel the 
thought : juiv arodoyeira, and make them feel his apostolic position afresh 
in all its ascendancy. It is inthis way that the victor speaks who has recon- 
quered his domain, and this language at the end of the letter completes the 
mastery shown in its well-calculated arrangement. — Kayo ebped6 ipiv x.T.A. | 
and that I shall be found such an one as you do not wish, namely, as tiwwpdc Kat 
koracr#e, Theophylact ; 1 Cor. iv. 21. The negation attaches itself to oiove 
in the first clause, but in this second to 8éAere, by which there is produced 
a climax in the expression. —iiv] Reference of eipedo : for you, to your ~ 
judgment based on experience. Comp. Rom. vii. 10; 2 Pet. iii. 14. This is 
more delicate and expressive than the meaning of the common interpretation : 
by you (dative with the passive), Rom. x. 20.— What follows is not, with 
Rickert, to be regarded as if u#twe Gown to dkaracraciac Were a more pre- 
cise explanation regarding the condition of the Corinthians (consequently re- 
garding that ware éAfdv oby oiove OA ebpw bude), and, ver. 21, a more pre- 
cise explanation regarding the apostle’s duty to punish (consequently regard- 
ing that «ayo... Oédere). Against this it may be decisively urged that 
ver. 21 brings forward quite a different category of sinful states from ver. 
20, and that ver. 21, rightly understood, does not yet express any threat of 
punishment. No; the arrangement of the passage is this : After Paul has 
said that he is afraid of not finding them such as he wishes them, and of 
being found by them such as they would not wish him, he now gives the 
more precise explanation of that first apprehension (uproc . . . ebpw imac), by 
adducing two hinds of sins, which he fears to find among them, namely, (1) 
the mischiefs occasioned by partisan feeling ; and (2) the sins ef impurity, 
which would bow him down and make him sad. The further explanation 
regarding the second apprehension expressed, kayo ebpebO buiv oiov ov OéAete, 

hereupon follows only at xiii. 1 ff. — Aro perc x.7.A.] 8c. ebpeOdow ev dyiv. 
— pew, Choc] contentions,® jealousy. See 1 Cor. i. 11, iii, 8. —Ovpoé] irae, 
excitements of anger. See on Rom. ii. 8; Gal. v. 20. —épileia] party-in- 
trigues. See on Rom. ii. 8, and the excursus of Fritzsche, I. p. 148 ff.*— 


1So that the chief emphasis is laid on 3 Regarding the plural form épes, see 
Katévavtt Tov Geov, Opposed to the previous Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 826; Gregor. Cor., ed. 
Upc. Schaef. p. 476; also Buttmann in the Stud, 

2 On ver. 20-xiii. 2, see the thorough dis- u. rit. 1862, p. 172. 
cussion by Liicke (Whitsun Programm of 4 Fritzsche (following Ilgen) is probably 


1837) ; Conjectan. exeg. Part I. p. 14 ff. right in deriving ¢pc0os from épr, valde (see 


CHAP. XII., 21. 693 


Katarantat, wOvprouot| slanders, whisperings. See on Rom. i. 80. — dvordcerc] 
Manifestations of conceited inflation ; elsewhere only in the Fathers, — 
axataoraciat| disorderly relations, confusions, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 33. (G’) 

Ver. 21. The interrogative interpretation (Lachmann, Liicke) is, viewed 
in itself, compatible not only with the reading rarecvéoer (Lachmann), but 
also with the deliberative subjunctive of the Recepta (Liicke). Comp. 
Xenophon, Oec. iv. 4: pi aicyvOduev tiv TMepodv BaoiAéga uihoacba ; see in 
general, Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 159 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 203. But 
the uswal non-interrogative explanation, which makes yf still dependent on 
goBortuar, not only makes the passage appear more emphatic (by the three 
parallels, pAtws — ufc — uh), but is also the only interpretation suited to 
the context, since, in fact, after the apprehension quite definitely expressed 
in ver. 20, the negative questiou, in the case of which a No is to be con- 
ceived as the answer (comp. vv. 17, 18), would be inappropriate. — In u4 
compared with the previous p#uc there lies a climax as regards the definite- 
ness of the conception. — dd] goes along with éddvtog pov tarewvdcy pe 6 
0. 2. mpd¢c bu. (comp. on ii. 1), so that Paul reminds them how already at his 
second visit (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9) he had experienced such humiliation. 
Connected merely with éA0évro¢ pov (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, de Wette, Weise- 
ler, and many others), it would be witnout important bearing. — 22Advro¢ 
pov tar. ye] a construction also of frequent occurrence in classical writers. 
Comp. on ix. 14, and see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 270 [E. T. 315]. — rare- 
vocet pe, not of bodily (Hofmann), but of mental bowing down in dejec- 
tion. Comp. Polyb. iii. 116. 8, iv. 80. 3. ‘‘ Nihil erat, quo magis exultaret 
apostolus, quam prospero suae praedicationis successu (comp. 1 Thess. il. 
20 ; Phil. iv. 1) ; contra nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore animo red- 
deretur, quam quum cerneret, se frustra laborasse,” Beza. Comp. Chrys- 
ostom. The future rarevvdce: (see the critical remarks), which expresses 
the apprehension that the sad case of this humiliation will withal actually 
still oceur (see on Col. ii. 8), stands in a climactic relation to the previous 
subjunctives ; the apprehension increases. — 6 edc pov] as Rom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. 
i.4. Inthe humbling experiences of his office Paul sees paedagogic de- 
crees of his God. —~zpd¢ tuac] not among you, for how superfluous that 
would be ! but : in reference to you, in my relation to you. So also Riick- 
ert, who, however (comp. Chrysostom, Osiander, and several), explains 
tarewoote Of Paul’s seeing himself compelled ‘‘to appear before them not 
with the joyful pride of a father over his good children, but with the puni- 
tive earnestness of a judge.” But the punitive earnestness of the judge is 
in fact no rarevvdorc, but an act of the apostolic authority, and only follows 
subsequently, after the tarewdore has taken place by the observation of the 
punishment-deserving state, which has made him feel that his efforts have 
been without result. — roAhov¢e tév mponpaptyKétwv Kal py petavoncdvtTwr| On 


Buttmann, Lexilog. I. p. 146 f.). Comp. the but 80s, since in épe the iota is short, 
many forms compounded with €pc in Ho- whereas in ép:80s it is long. See Homer, //. 
mer. For the second part of the word no Xvili. 550: ’Ev & érider réuevos BadvArjiov 
proper derivation has yet been found. This évida 5° éputor. See regarding the various 
second half is not simply the ending Qos, derivations, Lobeck,‘ Pathol. p. 365. 


PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


mponuapt., comp. Herodian, ili. 14. 8: arodoyeiofa: mpdg ra mponuaptnpéva. 
According to Riickert, Paul has written thus inexactly, instead of roAAove rav 
TMponuapT. TOVG py petavohoavtac. How arbitrary ! In that case he would 
have expressed himself with downright inaccuracy. Liicke, J.c. p. 20, ex- 
plains it more ingeniously : ‘‘Cogitavit rem ita, ut primum poneret Chris- 
tianorum ex ethnicis potissimum rtév mponuaptyKétov Kal py pwEeTavonodvTwv 
genus universum, cujus generis homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde 
vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos, qui Corinthi essent, designaret 
definiretque.” But the reference to the unconverted sinners, who ubique 
ecclesiarum essent, is quite foreign to the context, since Paul had simply to 
do with the Corinthians (comp. previously zpd¢ éuac), and hence these 
could not seek the genus of the mpoyjuaptykdror x.7 a. here meant elsewhere 
than just i their own church. The right interpretation results undoubtedly 
from the order of the thoughts specified at ver. 20, according to which ért 
Th dxafapoia x.T.A. cannot belong to weravoyo. (comp. Lucian, de salt. 84: 
peTavojoa: é¢ ol¢ érroinoev), as it is usually taken, but only to revOfow: and that 
IT will lament * many of those, who have previously sinned and shall not have 
repented, on account of the uncleanness, etc. Thus Paul passes over from the 
sinful states named in ver. 20 to quite another category of sins, and the 
course of thought accordingly is : ‘‘I fear that I shall not only meet with 
contentions, etc., among you, but that I shall have also to bewail many of , 
the then still unconverted sinners among you on account of the sins of im- 
purity which they have committed (Eph. iv. 30 ; Heb. xiii. 17).” Not all 
mponuaptnKoTes Kal uA weTavonoavtes in Corinth were impure sinners, but Paul 
fears that he will encounter many of them as such ; hence he cowld not 


1revdjow is taken by Theophylact and 
others, including Billroth, Riickert, Ols- 
hausen, and de Wette, as a threatening of 
punishment ; and Grotius even thought that 
the apostles may have discharged their 
penal office not without signs of mourning, 
* sicut Romani civem damnaturi sumebant 
pullam togam.” But the whole reference 
of the word to punishment is in the highest 
degree arbitrary, and at variance with the 
context. For it is only at xiii. 1 ff. that 
the threat of punishment follows; and the 
TaTewuoyn pe O Beds pov mpds vmas, With 
which xai revSjow is connected, warrants 
us only to retain for the latter the pure 
literal meaning dugere aliguem, which is 
rery current in classical writers (Hom. 
dt, xix. 225, xxiii. 283; Herod. vii. 220; Xen. 
Fiell. ii. 2.8) and in the LXX. (Gen. xxxvii. 
34, 1. 3, ad. ; Eeclus. li. 19; Judith xvi. 34). 
The word does not at all mean to prepare 
sorrow, as Vater and Olshausen explain it. 
Calvin therefore is right in leaving the idea 


of punishment out of account, and aptly - 


remarks: “ Veri et germani pastoris affec- 
tum nobis exprimit, quum luctu aliorum 
peccata se prosequuturum dicit.’’ Estius, 


too, rejects any reference to punishment, 
and finds in zwevdjow that Paul regards 
those concerned as Deo mortuos. Comp. 
Ewald. Under the latter view too much is 
found in the word, since the context does 
not speak of spiritual death, but specifies 
the ground of the mourning by émi ry axa- 
Sapoia «.7.A. Hence we must adhere to 
Calvin’s exposition as not going beyond 
either the meaning of the word or the con- 
text. Calovius also says very correctly (in 
opposition to Grotius) : ‘‘ Non de poena hic 
Corinthiorum impoenitentium, sed de moe- 
rore suo super impoenitentia.’? De Wette, 
followed by Osiander, tinds in wevd. the 
pain of being obliged to proceed with the 
special punishment of excommunication, and 
explains moAAovs tay mponmapT. K. MN) METAV, 
émi «.7.A. of the worst among the unconvert- 
ed sinners guilty of unchastity. In that 
case the chief points of the meaning must be 
mentally supplied, for which there is the- 
less warrant, seeing that wevd7jow is parallel 
to the tavecv. we 6 3., expressing subjectively 
that which is denoted by tame. «.7.A. 0b- 
Jjectively. 


CHAP. RIT (21. 695 
write at all otherwise than : roAdove tév mponuaptnKérwv Kal un pEeTavonodvTur.* 
This explanation is adopted by Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 792], Bisping, and 
Kling. — The perfect participle zpoyjuapr. denotes the continuance of the 
condition from earlier times; and «ai uj wetavoycavtwv has the sense of the 
futurum exactum: and who shall not have repented at my arrival. The 
mpo in roonuapt. expresses the sinning that had taken place in earlier times, 
which Liicke (comp. Olshausen) refers to the time before conversion (comp. 
the passages of Justin, Apolog. i. 61 ; Clement, Strom. iv. 12 in Liicke, p. 
18 f.). But as the evils adduced in ver. 20 only set in after the conversion, 
ve are not warranted (see the plan of the passage specified at ver. 20) to 
assume for the sins named in ver. 21 the time before conversion, as, indeed, 
1 Cor. v. 1 also points to the time after conversion. Butif we ask how far 
Paul with his zpo looks back into the past of the Corinthians that had 
elapsed since their conversion, it might, if we regard vv. 20 and 21 by them- 
selves, appear as if he referred not further back than to that time, in which 
the contentions (ver. 20) and the sins of impurity censured in 1 Cor. v. 1 
(ver. 21) emerged. But as this happened only after his second visit, and 
as he says in xiii. 2 that he had foretold (comp. ii. 1) punishment to the 
mponuaptyxdor already at his second visit, it follows that with his zpo he 
glances back from the present to the time before his second visit. After his 
Jirst visit there had already emerged in Corinth evils, which humbled him 
at his second visit (ver. 21), and on account of which he at that time 
threatened (see on xiii. 2) these tpoyuapryxdétec with punishment ; after his 
second presence there had now broken out, in addition, the contentions 


1 The objections of de Wette against my 
explanation will not bear examination. For 
(1) from the fact that Paul, in order to ex- 
press his alarm and anxiety regarding the 
unchaste, mentions withal the category of 
sinners in general, there does not arise the 
appearance as if he would not have to 
mourn over the latter; but out of the col- 
lective wickedness in Corinth he singles out 
the unchastity which was prevalent there 
as specially grievous. This species of sin- 
ners appears under the genus of Corinthian 
sinners as one of the two chief stains on 
the church (the other was the party-spirit, 
ver. 20). Further, (2) the mponuaptynxotes in 
xiii. 2 are not any more than here a species, 
but likewise the category, to which the 
kinds denoted in vv. 20 and 21 belonged. 
(8) The connection of émi «.7.A. With revdjow 
is not unnatural, but natural, since toAAovs 
TOV Toone. K. wy metav., taken together, is the 
object of wevd., so that Paul has observed 
the sequence which is simplest of all and 
most usual (werb—object—ground). ‘The ob- 
jections of Osiander and Hofmann are not 
more valid. Those of the latter especially 
amount in the long run to subtleiies, for 
which there is no ground. For Paul cer- 


tainly fears that he will have to lament the 
non-repentance of the persons concerned, 
and the sins which they are still committing 
at the time. This is clearly enough contained 
in kai wy peTavoynoavTwy ; and as to 7 émpaéav, 
Paul very naturally writes the aorist, and 
not 7 mpdccove.v, because he transplants 
himself, as in wy wetavonc., to the point of 
time when he arrives and will then judge 
what they have done up to that time. He 
might also have written 7 mpaccovorv, but 
would thereby have deviated from the con- 
formity of his conception of time intro- 
duced with kr. uw. weravons. (which is that of 
the futurum exactum), for which he had no 
occasion. It is incorrect, with Hofmann, 
to say that wetavoncavrwy refers to the time 
when Paul was writing this, and that, be- 
cause there was still space for them to 
repent up to the time of his arrival, he has 
not spoken generally of the impenitent, but 
of many (who, namely, would remain hard- 
ened). According to the context, weravon- 
cavTwy can only apply to the time of his im- 
pending éAvecv, when he will have to lament 
many of the old and still at that time non- 
repentant sinners, on account of their im- 
purity, ete, 


696 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


and sins of impurity which we know from his Epistles; and to all 
this, consequently to the whole time till after his first and before his 
second visit, he looks back, inasmuch as he says not merely juapryKéror, 
but 7 poxyuaptnxérwv. Consequently Billroth is wrong in restricting the word 
merely to those ‘‘ whom I already, through my second sojourn among you, 
know as sinners ;” and Estius says too indefinitely, and also quite arbitrari- 
ly, as regards zpo, not starting from the present time: ante scriptam prio- 
rem epistolam, while many others, like Riickert, do not enter on the ques- 
tion at all. — éxi rH axabapoia x.7.A.| if connected with ‘uetavoyodvtwv, would 
be im respect or on account of. But, apart from the fact that vetavoeiv (which, 
we may add, Paul has only here) is in the N. T. never connected with éxé 
(as Joel ii. 18 ; Amos vii. 8, LXX.), but with a7é (Acts vill. 22; Heb. vi. 
1) or é« (Rev. il. 21 f., xvi. 11), in this particular case the necessary and 
correct connection (see previously on rod. T. mponu. K. un wetavono.) is with 
rev0gow, the ground of which it specifies : over. Just so Aeschin. p. 84, 14; 
Plut. Agis, 17 ; Rev. xviii. 11 ; 1Sam. xv. 35 ; Ezra x. 6, al. ’AxaGapoia, 
here of licentious impurity, Rom. i. 24; Gal. v.19; Eph. iv. 19. Then: 
nopveia, fornication in specie. Lastly : doédyesa, licentious wantonness and 
abandonment (Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 19 ; Eph. iv. 19; Wisd. xiv. 26).— 
éxpagav| have practised. Comp. on Rom. 1, 82. 


Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(x°) Paul's view of boasting. Ver. 1. 


The Revised Version gives an exact rendering of the text as adopted by all 
the latest editors and by most modern expositors. ‘*I must needs glory, 
though it is not expedient.’’ He had repeatedly spoken of boasting as a kind 
of folly, something derogatory and painful; still, unseemly as it was, circum- 
stances compelled him to resort to it. However, now he would leave it and 
pass to the revelations made to him. 


(x®) ‘* The third heaven.’ Ver. 2. 


In regard to Dr. Meyer’s view that Paul had the Rabbinical notion of seven 
heavens, it may be said that it is by no means clear that the Jewish opinion to 
that effect was prevalent in Paul’s day, and still less that it was adopted by 
the sacred writers. But as we have in Eph. iv. 10 the phrase ‘above all 
heavens,’’ and in Heb. iv. 14, ‘‘passed through the heavens,” it seems better to 
consider the words as simply = the highest heaven. This disposes also of 
Dr. Meyer’s statement in ver. 3, that Paradise is different from the third 
heaven and ina higher sphere.—Paul was simply caught up to the present 
abode of the faithful dead. 


(z®) ** Not lawful for a man to utter.” Ver. 4. 


It needs no argument to show that if Paul was not allowed to narrate what 
he had actually seen in heaven, it is certainly wrong for ordinary persons 
to give an account of what they imagine to have taken place there. Besides, 


NOTES. 697 


how could a man utter them? We have a case in point in the fourth and fifth 
‘chapters of the Apocalypse. John had heaven opened to him, and tells us the 
result, but it is altogether in the form of symbols and figures. A throne 
is there, and One like a jasper and a sardine stone ; a rainbow like an emerald 
encircles all; seven lamps of fire are burning; lightnings flash, thunderings 
are heard ; and a sea of glass shines like crystal. All these are marvellously 
suggestive, but they do not ‘‘ utter the unutterable.”—And further, recent ex- 
perience confirms the words of F. W. Robertson: ‘There are some things 
in this world too low to be spoken of, and some things too high. You cannot 
discuss such subjects without vulgarizing them.” 


(a7) ** Save in my weaknesses.’”? Ver. 5. 


The meaning is, *‘ I will boast concerning myself only in those things which 
prove or imply my own weakness.’’ A revelation was a gratuitous favor, 
and might be gloried in without assuming any special merit to himself. 


(B") “He hath said.” Ver. 9. 


Dr. Meyer rightly insists upon the full sense of the perfect tense, as given in 
the Revised Version above. The answer was ever sounding in the Apostle’s 
ears, and not in his only, but in those of all God’s suffering people from 
that day to this. 


(c’) ** Will I glory in my infirmities.” Ver. 9. 


This is not a fanatical or irrational assertion, but based on sufficient grounds 
—viz. that Christ’s power may dwell upon me as aShechinah. Most Christians 
are satisfied if they are resigned under suffering. To rejoice in trials because 
thereby Christ is glorified is more than they aspire to, Paul’s experience was 
far above that standard. That Christ should be glorified was to him an end for 
which any human being might feel it an honour to suffer (Hodge), 


(p’) ** Signs and wonders and mighty deeds.” Ver. 12. 


As the author says, these are different designations of the same thing, viz. 
miracles. These are called signs in reference to their design, i.e. to confirm 
the divine mission of those who perform them ; wonders, because of the effect 
they produced ; and mighty deeds, because they are manifestations of divine 
power. How far the Apostle was from the view of some in our day, oe 
miracles are a burden ta carry. 


(E") ‘* Caught you with guile.” Ver. 16. 


It is very unfortunate that this phrase has often been quoted as if it 
expressed the course of the Apostle, instead of being, as Dr. Meyer says (and all 
critics agree), a concessive statement of the charge of his adversaries, which he 
proceeds in the next verse at once to deny, by an appeal to facts, viz. the 
mission of Titus and his companion, who followed Paul’s example in bearing 
their own expenses. 


698 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(x?) False impressions corrected. Ver, 19. 


The closing verses of the chapter seem designed to guard against two mis- 
takes the Corinthians might make: ‘First, that he felt himself accountable to 
them, or that they were the judges at whose bar he was defending himself. 
Second, that his object wasin any respect personal or selfish. He spoke before 
God, not before them; for their edification, not for his own reputation.”’ 
The first words of ver. 19 are well given in R. V. according to the best text, 
‘‘Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves,’’ etc. 


(ct) ‘* Lest there be strife, jealousy,” etc. Ver. 20. 


‘he accumulation of words serve to show the Apostle’s indignation, and also 
to present a lively picture of the evils introduced into a Christian church 
by the revival of this old disease of the Grecian commonwealths (Stanley). 
‘‘Swellings’’ = manifestations of pride and insolence. The other terms 
are well given in the R. V., except that ‘‘ wraths,” an unidiomatic word, would 
be better replaced by ‘‘ outbreaks of anger.”’ 


ORWPs SIT i ol; 699 


CHAPTER XIII 


Ver. 2. After viv Elz. has ypdda, in opposition to decisive evidence. A sup- 
plementary addition. Comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 4. ei] is wanting in BD* FG K 
S* min. Copt. Aeth. It. Eus. Dem. Theoph. Bracketed by Lachm. and Rick. 
Looking to the total inappropriateness of the sense of «ai ei, those authorities 
of considerable importance sufficiently warrant the condemnation of «, although 
Tisch. (comp. Hofm.) holds the omission to be ‘‘ manifesta correctio.’’ Offence 
was easily taken at the idea that Christ was crucified é& do6eveiac, and it was 
made problematical by the addition of an ¢i, which in several cases also was 
assigned a position before «cai (Or: e yap kai). — kai ydp jueic] Elz. has kai yap 
kai nuecic, in Opposition to far preponderating evidence. The second «ai is an 
addition, which arose out of xa ydp being taken as a mere for, namque, — év 
avr@| AF GS, Syr. Erp. Copt. Boern. have ody aité6. So Lachm. on the mar- 
gin. An explanation in accordance with what follows. — (yjoduea] Lachm. 
Riick. Tisch. read ¢joovev, in favour of which the evidence is decisive. — ei¢ 
vudc| is wanting only in B D*** K*** Arm, Clar, Germ. Chrys. Sedul., and is 
condemmed by Mill, who derived it from ver. 3. But how natural was the 
omission, seeing that the first half of the verse contains no parallel element ! 
And the erroneous reference of (jooev to eternal life might make eic¢ tud¢ appear 
simply as irrelevant. — Ver. 7. edjyouar] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick., following 
greatly preponderant evidence, have evyduefa, which Griesb. also approved. 
And rightly ; the singular was introduced in accordance with the previous 
éAmifw. — Ver. 9. tovro dé] This dé is omitted in preponderant witnesses, is 
suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. Addition for 
the sake of connection, instead of which 73 has 67 and Chrys. yap. — In ver. 10, 
the position of 6 kvpioc before édax, yor is assured by decided attestation. 


ConTENTS.—Continuation of the close of the section as begun as xii. 19. 
At his impending third coming he will decide with judicial severity and 
not spare, seeing that they wished to have for oncea proof of the Christ 
speaking in him (vv. 1-4). They ought to prove themselves; he hopes, 
however, that they will recognize Ais proved character, and asks God that 
he may not need to show them its verification (vv. 5-9). Therefore he 
writes this when absent, in order that he may not be under the necessity of 
being stern when present (ver. 10). Concluding exhortation with promise 
(ver. 11) ; concluding salutation’ (ver. 12) ; concluding benediction (ver. 
13.) 

Ver. 1. As Paul has expressed himself by parc épic x.7.A. In xii. 20, and 
in ver. 21 has explained himself more precisely merely as regards that yArw¢ 
EM av ovy olove OéAw ebpw bua (See On Xii. 20), he still owes to his readers a 
more precise explanation regarding the kay ebpeo buiv olov ov OéAete, and 
this he now gives to them. Observe the asyndetic, sternly-measured form of 


700 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

his sentences in vv. 1 and 2. — rpiror tovro épyouat mpd iuac] The elaborate 
shifts of the expositors, who do not understand this of a third actual coming 
thither, inasmuch as they assume that Paul had been but once in Corinth,’ 
may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and Wolf's Curae. According to Lange, 
apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 202 f. (comp. also Miarcker, Stellung der Pastoralbr. p. 
14), rpirov rovro is intended to apply to the third project of a journey, and 
épyoua to its decided execution: ‘‘ This third time in the series of projects 
laid before you above I come.” Linguistically incorrect, since rpirov rovro 
épy. cannot mean anything else than : jor the third time I come this time, so 
that it does not refer to previous projects, but to two journeys that had taken 
place before. Onrpitov rowvro, this third time (accusative absolute), that 
is, this time fora third time, comp. Herod. v. 76: réraprov 69 TovTo. . . 
anuduevot, LXX. Judg. xvi. 15: rovro tpitov émadvycdce pe, Num. xxii. 28 ; 
John xxi.14. Bengel correctly remarks on the present : ‘‘ jam sum in pro- 
cinctu.” (")— éni oréuatoc dbo paptipev x.t.2.| On this my third arrival there 
isto be no further sparing (as at my second visit), but summary procedure. 
Comp. Matt. xviii, 16, where, however, the words of the law are used with 
another turn to the meaning. Paul announces with the words of the law 
well known to his readers, Deut. xix. 15, which he adopts as his own, that 
he, arrived for this third time, will, without further indulgence, institute a 
legal hearing of witnesses (comp. 1 Tim. v. 19), and that on the basis of the 
affirmation of two and three witnesses every point of complaint will be decided. 
Not as if he wished to set himself up as disciplinary judge (this power was 
vested ordinarily in the church, Matt. xviii. 16, 1 Cor. v. 12, 18, and was, 
even in extraordinary cases of punishment, not exercised alone on the part 
of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 8-5), but he would bring on and arrange the sum- 
mary procedure in the way of discipline, which he had threatened. Nor 
did the notoriety of the transgressions render the latter unnecessary, seeing 
that, on the one hand, they might not all be notorious, and, on the other, 
even those that were so needed a definite form of treatment. Following 
Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Estius, and others, including recently 
Neander, Olshausen, Ribiger, Ewald, Osiander, Maier, have understood 
the two or three witnesses of Paul himself, who takes the various occasions 
of his presence among the Corinthians as testimonies, by which the truth of 
the matters is made good,? or the evecution of his threats (Chrysostom, The- 


1 Most of them, like Grotius, Estius, Wolf, 
Wetstein, Zachariae, Flatt, were of opinion 
that Paul expresses here, too, simply a 
third veadiness to come, from which view 
also has arisen the reading éroiuws éxw édAOetv 
instead of épxyouacin A, Syr. Erp. Copt. To 
this also Baur reverts, who explains €pxomat ! 
Tam on the point of coming. But this would, 
in fact, be just a third actual coming, which 
Paul was on the point of, and would presup- 
pose his having come already twice. Beza 
and others suggest: ‘‘ Binas suas epistolas 
(!) pro totidem ad illos profectionibus re- 
censet.” 


2 Grotius, in consistency with the view 
that Paul had been only once there, quite at 
variance with the words of the passage, 
pares down the meaning to this: ‘“ cum bis 
terveid dixerim, tandem ratum erit.”?> Com- 
pare also Clericus. The explanation of Em- 
merling: ‘‘Titum ejusque comites certis- 
simum edituros esse testimonium de animo 
suo Corinthios invisendi,” is purely fanci- 
ul. The simple and correct view is given 
already by Erasmus in his Paraphr. : ** Hie 
erit tertius meus ad vos adventus ; in hune 
se quisque praeparet. Neque enim amplius 
connivebo, sed juxta jus strictum atque exac- 


CHAP) XIII. 2: 701 


ophylact, and others, comp. Bleek, Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann) is to be de- 
cided (Theophylact : ézi rv tpidv pov Tapovorov Tray pia areiAntiKoy KataoTa- 
Ojoerat Ka? buav Kal KvpwOjoeTal, sav pH wEeTavojoatEe’ avTi papTivpwy yap Tag 
mapovoiacg avrov rifyo.). Butif Paul regarded himself, under the point 
of view of his different visits to Corinth respectively, as the witnesses, he 
could make himself pass for tiree witnesses only in respect of those evils 
which he had already perceived at his jirst visit (and then again on his 
second and third), and for two witnesses only in respect of those evils which 
he had lighted upon in his second visit for the jirst time, and would on his 
third visit encounter a second time. But in this view precisely all those evils 
and sins would be left out of account, which had only come into prominence 
after his second visit ; for as regards these, because he was only to become 
acquainted, with them for the jirst time at his third visit, he would only 
pass as one witness. Consequently this explanation, Pauline though it looks, 
is inappropriate ; nor is the difficulty got over by the admission that the 
relations in question are not to be dealt with too exactly (Osiander), as, in- 
deed, the objection, that the threat is directed against the rpoyuapryKdrec, 
avails nothing on the correct view of xii. 21, and the continued validity of 
the legal ordinance itself (it holds, in fact, even at the present day in the 
common law) should not after 1 Tim. v. 10 have been doubted. Nor does 
the refining of Hofmann dispose of the matter. He thinks, forsooth, that 
besides the zponuaprtykérec, all the rest also, whom such a threat may con- 
cern, are now twice warned, orally (at the second visit of the apostle) and in 
writing (by this letter), and his arrival will be to them the third and last ad- 
monition to reflect. This is not appropriate either to the words (see on ver. 
2) or to the necessary unity and equality of the idea of witnesses, with which, 
in fact, Paul—and, moreover, in application of so solemn a passage of the 
law—would have dealt very oddly, if not only he himself was to represent 
the three witnesses, but one of them was even to be his letter. —xai] not in 
the sense of 7, as, following the Vulgate, many earlier and modern exposi- 
tors (including Flatt and Emmerling) would take it, but : and, if, namely, 
there are so many.’ Paul might have put 7, as in Matt. xviii. 16, but, fol- 
lowing the LXX., he has thought on and, and therefore put it. —rav pia] 
everything that comes to be spoken of, to be discussed. Comp. on Matt. 
lv. 4. —orabjcera| will be established (O'P?), namely, for judicial decision. 
This is more in keeping with the original text than (comp. on Matt. xxvi. 
25) : will be weighed (Ewald). 

Ver. 2. ‘Q¢ rapov . . . viv is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it is a 
definition to tpoAéyw, which interrupts neither the construction nor the sense. 
I have said before, and say beforehand, as at my second visit (‘‘ sicut feci, cum 
-secundo vobiscum essem,”’ Er. Schmid), so also in my present absence, to those 
who have formerly sinned, and to all the rest, that, when TI shall have come again, 
I will not spare. Accordingly é¢ mapav 76 debrepov leaves no doubt as to the 


tum res agetur. Quisquis delatus fuerit,is pression ‘‘zwei bis drei.””» Comp. Xen. 

duorum aut trium hominum testimonio vel Anab. iv. 7%. 10: 8vo0 kai tpia Byyuata. See 

absolvetur vel damnabitur.”’ Kriiger and Kiihner in loc. In this case 
1Jt corresponds quite to the Germanex- «ai is atque, not also (Hofmann). 


102 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

temporal reference of rpoeipnxa. Moreover, from ver. 2 alonethe presence of 
the apostle, which had already ¢eice taken place, could not be proved. For, 
if we knew that he had been only once, rpocipyxa would certainly refer to the 
first epistle, and é¢ rapav x.7.A. would have to be explained : asif I were 
present for the second time, although I am now absent (comp. Grotius, Estius, 
Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Baur, and others).’ But, as it is clear from 
other passages that Paul had already been twice in Corinth, and as here in 
particular tpitov rovto épyouac immediately goes before, that view, in which 
also the viv would simply be superfluous and cumbrous, is impossible. 
Beza, who is followed by Zachariae and Miircker, connects awkwardly (see- 
ing that 70 debrepov and viv must correspond to each other) 7d debtepov with 
Hofmann also misses the correct view, when he makes dc serve 
merely to annex the quality (‘‘as one having been there a second time, and 
now absent”), in which the apostle has said and says beforehand. In this 
way oc would be the guippe qui from the conception of the speaker, as in 1 
Cor. vil. 25, and zapév would be imperfect. The two clauses of the sentence, 
however, contain in fact not qualities subjectively conceived, but two objec- 
tive relations of time ; and hence dc, if it is to have the sense given above, 
would simply be irrelevant (comp. 1 Cor. v. 3a; 2 Cor. x. 11; Phil. i. 27) 
and confusing. Paul would have simply written : mpocipyxa rapav ré debrepov 
Kai Tpodéyw arov viv. —Toic TponuaptynKéc:| See on xii. 21. It is self-evident, 
we may add, that the zpo in rponuapr. has from the standpoint of the zpo- 
Aéyw a greater period of the past behind it than from the standpoint of the 
mpoeipyxa, and that the rponuapryxérec, whom the present zpoAéyw threatens, 
were more, and in part other, than those to whom at the second visit the 
mpoeipnxa had applied. The category, however, is the same ; and hence it is 
not to be said, with Liicke, that from our passage it is clear : ‘‘quibus nunc, 
tanquam zponyaptykéor, severiorem castigationem minatur apostolus, eosdem 
jam tune, quum olim (rpoeipnea) minitatus esset, rponuaptnkérac fuisse.” Paul 
had at his second presence threatened the mpoyyaptnxdrec, and he threatens 
them also now. On the two occasions the threat referred to the same 
genus hominum, to those who had sinned before the time at which Paul 
discoursed to the Corinthians, and were still sinners ; but the individuals 
were not on the two occasions quite the same. Certainly at least there 
were now ( mpoAéyw) not a few among them, who had not been included on 
the previous occasion (see 1 Cor. i. 11, v. 1, comp. with 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21). 
— Kai toi¢ Aowroig rao] Thus toic¢ wy mponwaptnxéot. To these he then said it 


Tporéyw. 


1 To this category belongs also the strange 
view of Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 203: 
‘“Mhis is the second time that I am present 
among you and yet absent at the same 
time.’’ Paul, namely, had, in Lange’s view, 
the spirit-like gift of transplanting himself 
with the full spiritual power of his author- 
ity during his absence into the midst of the 
distant church, which had doubtless felt 
the thunderciap of his spiritual appearing. 
In Corinth this had taken place the first 


time at the exclusion of the incestuous per- 
son, 1 Cor. v. 8, and the second time now. 
Of such fancies and _ spiritualistic notions 
there is nowhere found any trace in the 
apostle. And what are we to make in that 
case of the viv? The only correct view of 
this vdv and its relation to 1d dSevrepor is al- 
ready given by Chrysostom: mapeyevéunv 
SevtTepov Kai etrov, Aéyw S€ Kal viv Sa Tis 
éemLoTOANs, avayKyn me AotToy adAnOcdoar. Comp. 
also ver. 10. 


GHAP. XIII., 3. 703 


before, and he says it so now, by way of warning, of deterring. It is the 
‘entire remaining members of the church that are meant, and Paul mentions 
them, not as witnesses, but in order that they make the threatening serve 
according to the respective requirements of their moral condition to stimu- 
late reflection and discipline ; hence roi¢ Aovroic, even according to our view 
of rponuapr., is not without suitable meaning (in opposition to de Wette). 
—eic rd réduv| On the racy used substantivally, see Bernhardy, p. 828, and 
on ei¢ in the specification of aterm of time, Matthiae, p. 1845. Comp. ei¢ 
aibic, sic dé, é¢ TéAoc, and the like. — od geicouac} The reasons why Paul spared 
them in his second, certainly but very short, visit, are as little known to us, 
as the reason why Luke, who has in fact passed over so much, has made no 
mention of this second visit in the Book of Acts. 

Ver. 3. I will not spare you ; for ye in fact will not have it otherwise ! 
Ye challenge, in fact, by your demeanour, an experimental proof of the 
Christ that speaks in me. Thus ézei, before which we are to conceive a 
pause, annexes the cause serving as motive of the ov deicoua, that was under 
the prevailing circumstances at work. Emmerling begins a protasis with 
éxet, parenthesizes dc cic iuac x.t.2., and the whole fourth verse, and regards 
' gavtod¢e meipatere in ver. 5 as apodosis. So, too, Lachmann, Olshausen, 
Ewald, who, however, treat as a parenthesis merely ver. 4. This division 
as a whole would not yield as its result any illogical connection, for, because 
the readers wish to put Christ to the proof, it was the more advisable for 
them to prove themselves. But the passage is rendered, quite unnecessarily, 
more complicated and cumbrous. —ézei doxiujv Cyreite x.7.A.| That is, since 
you make it your aim that the Christ speaking in me shall verify Himself, 
shall give you a proof of His judicial working. To take tov. . . Xprorod as 
genitive of the subject (comp. ix. 18; Phil. ii. 22) better suits the following 
5¢ kai twacxK.t.A., than the objective rendering (Billroth and Riickert, follow- 
ing older expositors) : a proof of the fact that Christ speaks in me. — ic ei¢ 
Duac ovK aabevet K.7.2.| who in reference to you is not impotent, but mighty among 
you. By this the readers are made to feel how critical and dangerous is 
their challenge of Christ practically implied in the evil circumstances of 
the church (xii. 20 f.), for the Christ speaking in the apostle is not weak 
towards them, but provided with power and authority among them, as they 
would feel, if He should give them a practical attestation of Himself. A 
special reference of dvvarei év wuiv to the miracles, spiritual gifts, and the 
like, such as Erasmus, Grotius,’ Fritzsche,? de Wette, and others assume, is 
not implied in the connection (see especially ver. 4) ; and just as little a 
retrospective reference to x. 10 (Hofmann). — Of the use of the verb duvareiv 
no examples from other writers are found, common as was advvareiv. Its 
use in this particular place by Paul was involuntarily suggested to him by 


1Grotius: ‘“‘Non opus habetis ejus rei religionis impedimenta tollendo, ecclesiam 
periculum facere, cum jampridem Christus moderando, ipsé vobis se fortem ostendit.”’ 
per me apud vos ingentia dederit potentiae This emphatic ipse is imported,—which 
suae signa.”’ arose out of Fritzsche’s regarding the apostle, 

2 Fritzsche, Diss. IT. p. 141: ‘‘ qui Christus not Christ, as the subject of Soxiuyy. 
xepionara largiendo, miracula regundo, 


104 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 

the similar sound of the opposite do6evei. Yet he has it also in Rom. xiv. 4 ; 
as regards 2 Cor. ix. 8, see the critical remarks on that passage. — éy iyiv] 
not of the tnternal indwelling and pervading (Hofmann), which is at variance 
with the context, since the latter has the penal retribution as its main point ; 
but the Christ speaking in Paul has the power of asserting Himself de facto 
as the vindex of His word and work in the church, so far as it is disobedient 
to Him and impenitent. 

Ver. 4. Kai yap éoraup. && ao6., adAa CH éx duvvdu. Oeov] Reason assigned for 
the previous é¢ ei¢ bude obk achevei, adAAd duvaret év buiv : for even crucified was 
He from weakness, but Heis living from the power of God.’ Without pév after 
éoravp. the contrast comes in with the more striking effect. é aofeveiac de- 
notes the causal origin of the éoravpé6y, and is not, with Chrysostom (who 
complains of the difficulty of this passage), to be interpreted of apparent 
weakness, but finds its explanation in viii. 9; Phil. 1. 7f. Jesus, namely, . 
had, in the state of His exinanition and humiliation, obedient to the Father, 
entered in such wise into the condition of powerless endurance as man, 
that He yielded to the violence of the most ignominious execution, to 
which He had, according to the Father’s will, submitted Himself ; and 
accordingly it came é& acbeveiac, that He was crucified. But since His resur- 
rection He lives (Rom. v. 10, vi. 9, xiv. 9, al.), and that from the power of 
God, for God has, by His power, raised Him up (see on Rom. vi. 4) and 
exalted Him to glory (Acts ii. 33; Eph. i. 20 ff.; Phil. ii. 9). To make 
the deov refer to acbevetac also (Hofmann, who inappropriately compares 1 
Cor. i. 25) would yield a thought quite abnormal and impossible for the 
apostle, which the very ov« aofevei, ver. 3, ought to have precluded. — kai yap 
qucic x.t.2.] Confirmation of the immediately preceding kai yap. . 
and that in respect of the two points é dofeveiag and Ch éx dvvdpeue Beod. 
‘‘ That the case stands so with Christ as has just been said, is confirmed 
from the fact, that these two relations, on the one hand of weakness, and 
on the other of being alive é« dvvdy. Seov, are found also in us in virtue of 
our fellowship with Him, It is an argumentum ab effectu ad causam issuing 
from the lofty sense of this fellowship, a bold certainty derived from experi- 
ence, the argumentative stress of which, contained in év air and ody ait6, 


. Geod, 


roneously takes the Recepta in such a way, 
that Paul with «at ei merely expresses a 
real fact conditionally on account of his 
wishing to keep open the possibility of looking 
at it also otherwise. In that case é& ac@eveias 
would really be the point of consequence 
in the protasis, and the apostle must at 
least have written Kai yap «i é& aodeveias 
éotavpwdy. Besides, the leaving open a pos- 


1The Recepta nat yap ei éotavp. would 
yield the quite unsuitable sense: for even 
af, i.e. even in the event that, He has been 
crucified, ete. Kat et should not, with the 
Vulgate and the majority of expositors, be 
taken as although, for in that case it would 
be confounded with «i cai. Kai et means 
even if, so that the climactic «ai applies to 
the conditional particle. See Hartung, I. 


p. 140 f.; Haack. ad Thuc. p. 562 f.; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A, Gorg. p. 509 
A. De Wette wrongly rejects my view of 
the Recenta, making kai yap signify merely 
for. It always means for even. See Har- 
tung, I. p. 148; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. 
p. 467 B. So, too, immediately in the kat 
yap nuecs that follows. Hofmann quite er- 


sible other way of regarding the matter 
would have no ground at allin the text. A 
mistaken view is adopted also by Osiander, 
who has taken xaié as the also of comparison, 
namely, of Christ with His servant (conse- 
quently, as if cat yap avrés had stood in the 
text). 


CHAP. XITT.; 5; 705 


bears the triumphant character of strength in weakness. Hofmann wrongly, 
in opposition to the clear and simple connection, desires to take kai yap juei¢ 
ao. év avt@, Which he separates from the following aAAd «.t.4., as a proof 
for the clause dc ei¢ tude ovK aobevei, GAAd Svvatei év buiv, for which reason he 
imports into év avr the contrast : not a weakness of the natural man. This 
contrast, although in substance of itself correct, is not here, any more than 
afterwards in ody air, intentionally present to the mind of the apostle. — 
acbevovuerv év ait@| Paul represents his sparing hitherto observed towards the 
Corinthians (for it is quite at variance with the context to refer do%., with 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Estius, and others, to suffer- 
ings and persecutions) as a powerlessness based on his fellowship with Christ, 
inasmuch as Christ also had been weak and éoravpddn é aoSeveiac.' But 
that is only a transient powerlessness ; we shall be alive with Him through the 
power of God in reference to you. (t7) As heis conscious, namely, of that im- 
potence as having its ground in Christ, he is conscious also of this being 
alive in union with Christ as fellowship with His life (ctv aizé), and hence 
proceeding é dvvdyuewe Seov, as Christ’s being alive also flowed from this 
source, Rom. i. 4, vi. 4, al. — Hic iwac, lastly, gives to the Cyoouev (which is 
not, with Theodoret, Anselm, and Grotius, to be referred to the future life) 
its concrete direction and special reference of its meaning :° we shall be alive 
(vigere, comp. 1 Thess, iii. ry in reference to you, namely, through the effec- 
tive assertion of the power divinely conferred on us, especially through 
apostolic judging and punishing (see vv. 1, 2). ‘‘ Non est vivere, sed valere 
vita,’’ Martial, vi. 70. Comp. for the pregnant reference of (6, Xen. Mem. 
i. 3. 11; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 809 D; Dio Cass. lxix. 19. Calvin weil 
observes: ‘‘ Vitam opponit injirmitati, ideoque hoc nomine jlorentem et 
plenum dignitatis statum intelligit.” 

Ver. 5. Now he brings the readers to themselves. Instead of wishing to 
put to the proof Christ (in Paul), they should try themselves (rewpaferv, to put 
to the test, and that by comparison of their Christian state with what they 
ought to be), prove themselves (Soxiudfevv). Oecumenius and Theophylact 
correctly estimate the force of the twice emphatically prefixed éavrote ; dox:- 
pacev, however, is not, any more than in 1 Cor. xi. 8, equivalent to ddxpuov 
moetv (Rickert); but what Paul had previously said by wevpafere, ei éoré évt. 
x., he once more sums up, and that with a glance back to ver. 3, emphati- 
cally by the one word doxiwdfere. — el éord év tH Tiotec] dependent on revpadéere, 
not on doxiuagere : whether ye are in the faith, whether ye find yourselves in 
the jides salvifica (not to be taken of faith in miracles, as Chrysostom would 
have it), which is the fundamental condition of all Christian character and 
life. The civac év rH riores stands opposed to mere nominal Christianity. — 
i ovK émtywwooxete x.T.A.| not ground of the obligation to prove themselves the 
more strictly (‘‘si id sentitis, bene tractate tantum hospitem,” Grotius, 


1 This impotence is not to be conceived as est resignation and self-surrender, and this 
involuntary (de Wette, following Schwarz was its very characteristic. Comp. Heb. 
in Wolf), but as voluntary (comp. ov deico- xii. 2. 
pat, ver. 2), as Christ’s weakness also was 2 Tence eis vuds is not, with Castalio and 
voluntary, namely, the impotence of deep- _Riickert, to be joined to duvau, deod. 


706 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


comp. Osiander, Maier, and others) ; for the éryidécxew already presup- 
poses the self-trial, not the converse (Hofmann). On the contrary, Paul 
lays hold of the readers by their Christian sense of honour, that they should 
not be afraid of this trial of themselves. Or does not this proving of your- 
selves lead you to the knowledge of yourselves, that Christ isin you ? (37) 
Are you then so totally devoid of the Christian character, that that self-trial 
has not the holy result of your discerning in yourselves what is withal the 
necessary consequence! of the eiva: év rh riorer : that Christ is in you (by 
means of the Holy Spirit) present and active? Comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. 
iii. 17. The construction éavrove ére I. X. év tyuiv éotw is not a case of at- 
traction, since in 67 x.7.A., iueic is not the subject (see on Gal. iv. 11), but 
éve defines more precisely (that, namely). And the full name ’Ijcov¢ Xpioré¢ 
has solemn emphasis. — ei wre adéximoi éore] After this a mark of interroga- 
tion is not to be repeated, but a period to be placed. That Christ is in you, 
you will perceive, if you are not perchance (ei wAr1, comp. 1 Cor. vil. 5) spu- 
rious Christians. (k') In such, no doubt, Christ is not! Rom. viii. 9 f. 
To attach it merely to the predicated clause itself (I. X. év dy. é.) as a limi- 
tation (Hofmann), is at variance with the very yréceo¥e, bre that follows in 
ver. 6, in keeping with which that exception e yar «.t.2. is to be included 
under the érz «.7.A. attached to émiywvdok. éavrobc. In et wate the te serves 
(like forte) ‘‘incertius pronuntiandae rei,” Ellendt, Lev. Soph. I. p. 496. 
According to Ewald, e ware ad. gore depends on doxiwacere, and 7 ot éxcyivdon. 
. év byiv éoriv is to be a parenthesis—a construction which is harsh and 
the less necessary, seeing that, according to the usual connection, the 
thoughtful glance in the adédxipoi éore back to éavrode doxiudfere is retained. 

Ver. 6. The case of the adédxuov eivat, however, which he has just laid 
down as possible perhaps in respect of the readers, shall not, he hopes, oc- 
cur with him: you shall discern (in pursuance of experience) that we are 
not unattested, ungenuine, that is, ‘‘ non deesse nobis experimenta et argumenta 
potestatis et virtutis, qua in refractarios uti possimus,” Wolf. Comp. vv. 7, 
9. Not without bitterness is this said. But the object of the hoping is 
not the desert of punishment on the part of the readers, but the doxeuy of the 
apostolic authority in the event of their deserving punishment. ’AzeAnrixoc¢ 
rovTo Téetkev, OC UWéAAWY AUTOIC THE TrEvmaTLKAC Ovvauewc Tapéyerv ardderEv, Theo- 
doret. According to others (Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Calovius, Bengel), 
Paul expresses the hope that they would amend themselves and thereby 
evince the power of. his apostolic influence. This, as the blending of the 
two views (Flatt, Osiander), is opposed to the context in vv. 3 f., 7, 9. 
Not till ver. 7 does Paul turn to the expression of gentle, pious love. 

Ver. 7. Yet we pray to God that this, my apostolic attestation, which T hope 
to give you means of discerning, may not be made necessary on your part. 
On evydueda (see the critical remarks), compared with the éArifo used just 
before, observe that, as often in Paul and especially in this Epistle of vivid 
emotion, the interchange of the singular and the plural forms of expressing 


1 The elvat év r. wicre. and the Xpiords é€v each other as’ cause and effect. Comp. 
vary are not equivalent, but are related to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 848. 


CHA PAXIL. 7. 107 


himself has by no means always special grounds by which it is determined. 
— pn trojoa buac Kaxdv pndév| that ye may do nothing evil, which, in fact, 
would only keep up and increase your guilt. Others incorrectly take it,’ 
“that I be not compelJed to do something evil to you.” How could Paul 
have so designated his chastisement ? For that roveiv axév stands here, not 
in the sense : to do something to one’s harm, but in the ethical sense, is shown 
by the contrast 76 xaAdv rojre in what follows. But even apart from this, 
in fact, because ciydéueda receives through zpdc rov Vedv (comp. Xen. Mem. 


. i, 3. 2; 2 Macc. ix. 13, xv. 27; Num. xxi. 8, al.) the meaning we pray, the 


words, in the event of rojoat iuac not being held to be accusative with in- 
finitive, would have to be explained: to pray to God that He may do 
nothing evil to you—which would be absurd. But the accusative with the 
infinitive occurs as in Acts xxvi. 19. — ody iva jusic x.7.A.| Statement of the 
object, for which he makes this entreaty to God, first negatively and then 
positively ; not in a selfish design, not in order that we may appear through 
your moral conduct as attested) in so far, namely, as the excellence of the 
disciple is the attestation of the teacher, comp. iii. 2 f., Phil. iv. 1, 1 Thess. 
li. 20, al.), but on your account, in order that ye may do what is good, and 
thus the attestation may be on your side and we may be as unattested, in so 
far, namely, as we cannot in that case show ourselves in our apostolic 
authority (by sternness and execution of punishment). That he should 
with déx«yoe and adéxeuor refer to two different modes of his dox:u#, is quite a 
Pauline trait. Through the moral walk of the readers he was manifested 
on the one hand as déxiwoc, on the other as addxiwoc ; what he intended in 
his evydueSa mpdc tov Vedv x.t.A. was not the former, for it was not about 
himself that he was concerned, but the latter, because it was simply the 
attestation of the readers by the moeiv r6 caddy that he had at heart. 
According to Olshausen, there is meant to be conveyed in ony iva jusic déK. 
davon. : not in order that the fulfilment of this prayer may appear as an effect 
of my powerful intercession. But Paul must have said this, if he had meant 
it. Others® hold that after ovy there is to be supplied ef youa:, or the idea of 
wish implied in it, and iva expresses its contents; ‘‘I do not wish that I 
should show myself as standing the test (that is, stern), but rather that ye 
may do what is good and I be as not standing the test (that is, may appear 
not standing the test, and so not stern),” Billroth. Certainly the contents 
of eiyecda: might be conceived as its aim, and hence be expressed by iva 
(Jas. v. 16; Col. i. 9; 2 Thess. i. 11); but in this particular case the 
previous infinitive construction, expressing the contents of the prayer, 
teaches us-that Paul has not so conceived it. Had he conceived it so, 
he would have simply led the readers astray by iva. The explanation 
is forced, and simply for the reason that the fine point of a double aspect of 


1§o0 Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann, and pre- 12. Elsewhere always in the N. T. sovety 
viously Flatt and Emmerling, asin the first = reve re, 
instance Grotius, who says: ‘‘Ne cogar 2 So Billroth and Osiander and others, as 
cuiquam poenam infligere, quae malum well as previously Flatt, Zachariae, Estius, 
dicitur, quia dura est toleratu.’? Onovecy Menochius, ai. 
Twa Tt, COMP. Matt. xxvii. 22; Mark xv. 9 


708 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the doxiw7 was not appreciated. From this point of view Paul. might have 
said in a connection like vi. 8 f.: d¢ addxiuor Kat déKiwor. — dc adéxiwot| Beza 
aptly says : hominum videlicet judicio. By way of appearance. Comp. al- 
ready Chrysostom. : 

Ver. 8. Reason assigned for the relation just expressed as aimed at by iva 
bueic TOKAAOY ToLATe, HuEic Oé OG AddKiuot Guev. That we really have this design, 
is based on the fact that we are not in a position to do anything against the 
truth, but for the truth. The dA7/7e:a is to be taken in the habitual sense 
of the N. T.: the truth car éoy#v, the divine truth, i.e. the gospel ; comp. 
iv. 2, vi. 7. If Paul, forsooth, had not had the design that the readers 
should do what is good, and he himself appear without punitive power and 
consequently as unattested, he would have counteracted the gospel, in so far 
as it aims at establishing Christian morality, requires penitence, announces 
forgiveness to the penitent, etc. ; but he is not ina position to do so (1) 
To take aagdea, with Flatt and older expositors,! as moral truth (see on 
1 Cor. v. 8), uprightness, is a limitation of it, which the context all the less 
suggests, seeing that aA7#%ea in the above sense embraces in it the moral 
element. The taking it in the judicial sense would be accordant with the 
context (iva aAnd7 dépwuev tiv Widov, Theophylact, so Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Grotius ; ‘quod rectum justumque est ;” Cornelius 4 Lapide, Bengel, de 
Wette: ‘‘the true state in which the matter finds itself ;” so, too, Ribiger) ; 
yet, in that case, there would result an inappropriate contrast, since iép. r. 
aA, can Only mean ‘‘for the benefit of the truth,” which presupposes a more 
comprehensive idea of aa#d. (de Wette : ‘‘to further the truth”). —aawv 
imip tr. Gh.] se. duvduedd rr, we are able to do something. 

Ver. 9. Not reason assigned for ver. 7 (Hofmann), but confirmation of 
what is said in ver. 8 from the subjective relation of the apostle to the 
readers, in which yaipouev has the emphasis. This joy is as the living seal 
of the heart to that axiom. —daodevouev| according to the connection, quite 
the same as adéxcuor Guev in ver. 7, of the state in which the apostle is not in 
% position to exercise punitive authority on account of the Christian conduct 
of his readers. Comp. ver. 4. — dvvaroi] correlative to the dodevauev, con- 
sequently: such as (on account of their Christian excellence) one can do noth- 
ing to with the power of punishment. The latter is powerless in presence of 
such a moral disposition. The context does not yield more than this con- 
trast ; even the thought, that the dvvatoi guard themselves against all that 
would call forth the punitive authority (Hofmann), is here foreign to it. — 
tovro kai evydueda] this, namely, that ye may be strong, we also pray; it is 
not merely the object of our joy, but also of our prayers. On the absolute 
ebyeoda used of praying (for after ver. 7 it is not here merely wishing), comp. 
Jas. v. 16; often in classic writers. There is no reason for taking the rowro 
adverbially : thereupon, on that account (Ewald). — tiv budv kardptiowy| epexe- 
gesis of rovro: namely, your full preparation, complete furnishing, perfec- 
tion in Christian morality. Comp... «arapricuédc, Eph. iv. 12. Beza and 


1So Photius in Oecumenius, p. 709 D: ** Innocentiae enim nostra sententia obesse 
adjerav Thy evoéBecav Kadet ws vodouv byvTOS non poterit ;’? as also Erasmus, Mosheim, 
tov dvaceBovs Biov, and previously Pelagius : and others. 


CHAP, :-XITT,, 10, 11% 709 


Bengel think of the readjustment of the members of the body of the church 
that had been dislocated by the disputes (see on 1 Cor. i. 10, and Kypke, 
II. p. 290)—a special reference, which is not syeposed in the context. 
See ver. 7. 

Ver. 10. This, namely, that I wish to have you duvarot¢ or Karypricpévove 
and pray accordingly, this is the reason why 1 write this when absent, in order 
not to proceed sharply when present, etc. He wishes that he may be spared 
from the ov geicouac threatened in ver. 2, and that he may see the earnest 
anxiety, which he had already expressed at xii. 20 f., dispelled. In virtue 
of this view of its practical bearing, raira is to be fucarted not to the whole 
Kpistle, but (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) to the current section from xii. 
20 onward. — aroréuwc] literally, cwrtly,—that is, with thoroughgoing stern- 
ness,—the same figurative conception as in our schroff, scharf [English, 
sharply|. Inthe N. T. only recurring at Tit.i.13. Comp. Wisd. v. 22, and 
Grimm 7n loc. ; arorouia, Rom. xi. 22. More frequently in classical writers. 
See, in general, Fritzsche, ad fom. II. p. 508; Hermann, ad Soph. O. R. 
877. —On ypdoua: without dative, with ha teah to deal tithe comp. Esth. i. 
19, ix. 27, ix. 12; 2 Macc. xii. 14; Polyb. xii. 7. 3. — fv 6 Kipwoc Muxé poe 
el¢ olxod, x.T.A.| contains a reason why he might not proceed azoréduwc, as 
thereby he could not but act at variance with the destined purpose for which 
Christ had given to him his apostolic authority, or at least could serve it 
only indirectly (in the way of sharp chastening with aview to amendment). 
Comp. x. 8. If weconnect the whole xara r. éfovciay x.t.2. with ypddw (Hot- 
mann), the iva rapov py) aroréu. yphowuat is made merely a parenthetic thought, 
which is not in keeping with its importance according to the context (ver. 
7 ff.), and is forbidden by the emphasized correspondence of arév and rapév 
(comp. ver. 2). This emphasis is all the stronger, seeing that azév in itself 
would be quite superfluous. 

Ver. 11. Closing exhortation. Bengel aptly observes : ‘‘ Severius scrip- 
serat Paulus in tractatione, nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa non dimissa.”’ — 
Aourdv| See on Eph. vi. 10. What I otherwise have still to impress on you 
is, etc. : ‘‘Verbum est properantis sermonem absolvere,” Grotius. — yai- 
pete| not : valete (for the apostolic valete follows only at ver. 13), as Valla, 
Erasmus, and Beza have it, but gaudete (Vulgate). Encouragement to 
Christian joy of soul, Phil. ili. 1, iv. 4. And the salvation in Christ is great 
enough to call upon even a church so much injured and reproached to re- 
joice. Comp. i. 24. —xkaraprifecte| let yourselves be brought right, put into 
the right Christian frame 3; réAevo yiverde, avatAnpovte Ta Aeitéueva, Chrys- 
ostom. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10 ; and see Suicer, Z’hes, IL. p. 60. — rapaxareiod | 
is by most, including Billroth, Schrader, Osiander, correctly understood of 
consolation ; become comforted over everything that assails and makes you to 
need comfort, consolationem admittite! éret yap roddoi Hoav ol retpacpol Kai 
peyadot ol xivdvvor, Chrysostom. Riickert no doubt thinks that there was 
nothing to be comforted ; but the summons has, just like what was said at 
i. 7, its good warrant, since at that time every church was placed in circum- 
stances needing comfort. Riickert’s own explanation : care for your spirit- 
ual elevation, is an arbitrary extension of the definite sense of the word to an 


710 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


indefinite domain. Others, following the Vulgate (exhortamini), such as 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Ewald, Hofmann, render : accept exhortations to what is 
good, which, however, in the connection is too vague and insipid ; while de 
Wette, following Pelagius, Cornelius 2 Lapide, and others (exhort ye one 
_ another), imports an essential element, which Paul would have expressed by 
rapakaneite G2AGdove (1 Thess. iv. 18, v. 11) or éavrobe (Heb. iii. 13). — 76 aitd 
gpoveire} Gemands the being harmonious as identity of sentiment. See on 
Phil. ii. 2.— eipyvebere| have peace (one with another), Rom. xii. 18 ; 1 Thess. 
v. 138; Mark ix. 50; Plat. Theaet. p. 180 A ; Polyb. v. 8. 7 ; Ecclus. xxviii. 
9, 13. Itisthe happy consequence of the 7d aird dpoveiv ; with the diya 
gpoveiv it could not take place. — kai 6 Ged¢ x.7.A.| This encouraging promise 
refers, as is clear from rye ayarne Kai elphvyc, merely to the two last points 
especially needful in Corinth—to the harmony and the keeping of peace ; 
hence a colon is to be put after rapaxadeiode. And then, if ye do that (kai, 
with future after imperatives, see Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 392]), will God, who 
works the love and the peace (Rom. xv. 13, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. 
v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20), help you with His presence of grace. The charac- 
teristic genitival definition of God is argumentative, exhibiting the certainty 
of the promise as based on the moral nature of God. (m’) 

Ver. 12, 18. As to the saluting by the holy kiss, see on 1 Cor. xvi. 20. — oi 
aytoe raytec| namely, at the place and in the vicinity, where Paul was writing, 
in Macedonia. It was obvious of itself to the readers that they were not 
saluted by all Christians generally (Theodoret). It by no means follows from 
this salutation that the Epistle had been publicly read at the place of its com- 
position (possibly Philippi) in the church (Calovius, Osiander), but simply 
that they knew of the composition of the Epistle. Noris any special set 
purpose to be sought as underlying the current designation of Christian dycoc 
(‘‘utpote sanguine Christi lotos et Dei Spiritu regenitos et sanctificatos,”’ 
Calovius). According to Osiander, the higher value and blessing of the 
brotherly greeting is meant to be indicated ; but comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20, of 
adeAdot mavrec. — Paul does not add salutations to individuals by name ; these 
Titus might orally convey, and the apostle himself came, in fact, soon 
after (Acts xx. 2). 

Ver, 14. Concluding wish of blessing—whether written by his own hand 
(Hofmann) is an open question—full and solemn as in no other Epistle, 
tripartite in accordance with the divine Trinity,’ from which the three 
highest blessings of eternal salvation come to believers. — The grace of Christ 
(comp. Rom. v. 15, 1. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 8; 2 Cor..1. 2, viii. 9; Gal. vi. 18 ; Eph. 
i. 2; Phil. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 25), which is continuously active in 
favour of His own (Rom. viii. 34 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8), is first adduced, because 
it is the medians, Rom. v. 1, viii. 34, between believers and the love of God, 
that causa principalis of the grace of Christ (Rom. v. 8), as it also forms the 
presupposition of the efficacy of the Spirit, Rom. viii. 1, 2. The fellowship 
of the Holy Spirit—that is, the participation in the gracious efficacy of the 


1 On the old liturgical use of this formula of blessing, see Constit. apost. viii. 5. 5, viii. 
12. 3. 


NOTES. 711 
Holy Spirit ‘—is named last, because it is the consequence of the two former 
(Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), and continues (Rom. vil. 6, vill. 4 ff., 26 f.) and 
brings to perfection (Rom. viii. 11 ; Gal. vi. 8) their work in men. — pera 
Seal of holy apostolic love after so much severe cen- 


<avTwv buav| sc. ein. 
sure, one thing for all. (N") 


Notes py American Eprror. 


(x’) Paul's visits to Corinth. Ver. 1. 


All the recent expositors save Stanley and Plumptre (in Ellicott’s Commentary) 
agree that the language of this verse implies that the Apostle had already 
visited Corinth twice. There is a good note on the subject by Dr. Poor in the 
American edition of Lange. 


(1') «* We also are weak in Him.” Ver. 4. 


This weakness is not a moral weakness, nor is it bodily infirmities or suffer- 
ings, nor yet a weakness in the estimation of others, i.e., that he was despised. 
It is antithetical to power, and as the power referred to was that of punish- 
ment, the weakness must be the absence of such power. ‘‘The Apostle in 
Christ, i.e., in virtue of his fellowship with Christ, was when in Corinth weak 
and forbearing, as though he had no power to vindicate his authority ; just as 
Christ was weak in the hands of His enemies when they led Him away to be 
crucified. But as Christ’s weakness was voluntary, as there rested latent in 
the suffering Lamb of God the resources of Almighty power ; so in the meek, 
forbearing Apostle was the plenitude of supernatural power which he derived 
from his ascended Master’’ (Hodge). 


(s") ‘* Prove your own selves.’? Ver. 5. 


The exhortation, Hodge argues, supposes on one hand that faith is self-mani- 
festing, that it reveals itself in consciousness and by its fruits; and on the 
other, that it may exist and be genuine and yet not be known as true faith by 
the believer himself. [The poet Cowper is a case in point.] Only what is 
doubtful needs to be determined by examination. 


(K") ‘* Except ye be reprobates.” Ver. 5. 


The Revised Version retains the closing word here, putting it as an adjective 
and not a noun. Of course it neither does nor can have the theological sense 


1 Estius, Calovius, and Hammond under- 
stand xo.wwvia of the communicatio activa of 
the Holy Spirit, which, doubtless, as 70d 
mveve, ay. Would be genitivus sudjecti, is in 
accordance with the preceding clauses, and 
not at variance with the linguistic usage of 
xo.vwvia in itself (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. pp. 
81, 287), but is in opposition to the usage 
throughout in the N. T. (see on Rom. xy. 
26; 1 Cor. x. 16),and not in keeping with 
passages like Phil. ii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Pet. 
i, 4, passages which have as their basis 


the habitually employed conception of the 
participation in the divine, which takes 
place in the case of the Christian. Hence 
also not: familiaris consuetudo with the 
Holy Spirit (Ch. F. Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 

”6). Theophylact well remarks: tiv rowvw- 
viav Tov aylov mTVEVMaTOS, TOUTETTL THN V MET O- 
XNV avTOUV Kat THY METAAHWLY, Kad Hy 
aylaCoueda, TH ed’ Nuas emiportyaer Tov mapa- 
KATOV KOLYWVOL AUTOU yevouEvoL Kai avToOl, OUK 
ovoia, adda pedeser ovtes. 


712 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of ‘‘ one judicially abandoned to perdition,” but simply means those who can- 
not stand the test and are disapproved. 


(u") “* We can do nothing against the truth.” Ver. 8. 


It follows from Dr. Meyer’s just exposition of this utterance that Paul’s de- 
cision, if against the truth, availed nothing before God. The doctrine of Rome, 
that discipline is valid and effectual, even clave errante, is refuted by this text. 
What the church binds on earth is bound in heaven only when it is in accord- 
ance with the truth. 


(m') The condition of peace, Ver. 11. 


In reference to the two latter clauses of the verse, Hodge calls attention to 
the ‘‘ familiar Christian paradox.” God’s presence produces love and peace, 
and we must have love and peace in order to have His presence. God gives, 
but we must cherish His gifts. His agency does not supersede ours, but min- 
gles with it and becomes one with it in our consciousness. We work out our 
own salvation while God works in us, 


(nN?) The comprehensive benediction. Ver. 14. 


It is remarkable that an Epistle written under a tempest of conflicting emo- 
tions and often breathing indignation, reproach, and sorrow, should close with 
the richest of all the benedictions of the New Testament. The grace of the 
Lord Jesus stands first, because it is by it, as Bengel says, that the love of God 
reaches us. It is indeed the necessary condition of its manifestation, for we 
are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The love of God, again, is the 
source of redemption. It is manifested in His sending his only-begotten into 
the world, for God so loved the world that he gave, etc. The communion of 
the Holy Ghost is not communion with Him, but participation in Him, the 
holy fellowship mediated by His indwelling with the Father and with the 
Son, and with all that belong to the one mystical body of Christ.—The dis-» 
tinct personality and the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 
being here plainly implied, the benediction is a clear recognition of the 
Trinity, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


A. 


Aaronic Blessing, 13. 

Absolution, 269. 

Abstinence, 189 seq. ; 
good, 191 seq. 

Achaia, 6; churches of, 11, 400 seq., 
416. 

Adam, The first and the last, 379 seq.; 
the fall of, 640 seq., 667. 

Adiaphora, 190, 192, 193. 

Admonition, 101. 

Affliction, 417 seq., 436, 437, 419 seq. ; 
a special, 420 seq. ; in ministerial 
work, 494 seq., 505, 547 seq , 548 
seq. ; compensations of, 503, 505, 
507. 

Agapae, 258, 259, 271, 328. 

Aim of the Christian Life, 213 seq., 
216. 

Amen, 323, 335, 433. 

Anathema, Maranatha, 404 seq., 406. 

Angels, 129 seq. ; the judging of, 145 ; 
as guardians, 253 ; the language of, 
301. 

Aphrodite, worship of, 1. 

Apollos, 2; his party, 19 seq., 84, 
183 ; and the resurrection, 340; to 
visit Corinth, 399. 

Apostles, sent of God, 98; suffer pri- 
vations, 99 seq.; married, 215 ; 
witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, 
344 seq. 

Apostolic, greeting, 9, 13, 403 seq., 
416 seq. ; teaching, 26; benevolence, 
394 seq. 

Appearances, Regard for, 594, 598. 

Aquila, 1, 

Arbitration, 128, 131 seq. 

Asceticism, 214, 260. 

Atonement, The, 264 seq. ; faith in, 
267 ; the central fact, 343 ; effect of, 
522 ; its benefits, 529 seq., 542 seq. ; 
the doctrine of, 539 seq., 543. 

Avaricious, The, warned against, 120, 
121. 


for others’ 


B. 


Baptism, and faith, 24; and Paul, 25 
seq. ; delegated to assistants, 26 ; 
effect of, 66; regeneration in, 135, 
146 ; of infants, 160, 179 ; the sym- 


bols of, 219 seq., 242; in the Holy 
Spirit, 289°; for the dead, 364 seq., 
366 seq., 368, 392. 

‘* Being saved,” 39 seq. 

Benevolence, commended, 237, 242, 
394 seq. ; exhibited, 578 seq., 597, 
580 seq. ; exhortation to, 583 seq., 
601 seq. ; the divine measure of, 
588 seq. ; equal and universal, 590 
seq., 598; voluntary, 604 seq.; bless- 
ings of, 609 seq. 

Benediction, The Triune, 710, 712. 

Bible, The, its chief aim, 40 ; its spir- 
itual interpretation, 56 seq. 

Blessing, Aaronic, 13. 

Boasting, forbidden, 36, 81, 84 seq., 
commanded, 38; disapproved of, 
627 seq. ; in God, 635 ; of Panl, 654: 
seq., 671 seq. 

Body, The, 141 seq. ; a temple, 144 
seq.; its membership, 291 seq. ; 
divinely designed, 293 seq. ; nature 
of its resurrection, 373 seq., 375 seq., 
377 seq., 393, 512 seq., 541; kinds 
of, 378 seq., 383, 384, 507 seq. ; 
translation of, 520. 

Brothers of Christ, 198 seq. 


C 


Calvin, and the Lord’s Supper, 231 

_ seq. 

Canon, of the Bible, 125. 

Catechism, Teachings of the, 61. 

Celibacy, 150 seq., 152 seq., 154, 155 
seq., 169 seq., 174 seq., 176 seq., 
178 seq., 180, 197. 

Cephas, his party, 19 seq.; mentioned, 
199 ; witness of Christ’s resurrec- 
tion, 343. 

Change, A universal, 384 seq., 393. 

Chloe, 18 seq. 

Childhood condition, 306, 310; in 
judgment and malice, 323 seq. 

Christ Jesus, invocation of, 11; fel- 
lowship with, 10, 13; imparts 
knowledge, 13 seq.; his second 
coming, 15, 16, 74, 84, 91, 355 seq. ; 
a party of, 20 seq. ; if divided, 24 
seq. ; proclaimed, 31 seq. ; as the 
Crucified, 32 seq., 391 ; our wisdom 
and righteousness, 37 seq., 41; his 


14. 


crucifixion, 50; his mind, 59 seq. ; 
the foundation, 70 seq., 73 ; subor- 
dinated, 83, 85 ; the paschal lamb, 
116 ; His brothers, 198 seq. ; as the 
Rock, 221, 222, 242; his Divinrty, 
243; the head, 246 seq.; confessing, 
298; His resurrection, 342 seq., 
352 seq.; His final triumph, 359 
seq., 361 seq. ; the glory of His res- 
urrection body, 382; the author of 
victory, 390 ; the life of believers, 
497 seq. ; died for all, 529 seq., 542 
seq. ; the righteousness of God, 
539 seq. ; his humiliation, 584 seq., 
597 ; will triumph over all, 621. 

Christian, The, possessing all, 81, 82, 
84, 501; belonging to Christ, 84 
seq. ; aS God’s steward, 87 seq. ; 
enduring privations, 96 seq. ; to be 
purified, 115 seq., 124; to be holy, 
117; to be a judge, 128 seq., 145 ; 
of angels, 129 seq. ; forbidden to 
litigate, 127 seq., 131 seq., 133 seq.; 
to be self-master, 139 ; united with 
Christ, 142 ; bought with a price, 
168, 196 ; striving for the goal, 213; 
hisrule of conduct, 241 ; to imitate 
Christ, 246; to seek after love, 
300-312 ; to be, raised ‘first, 355 
seq. ; the nature of his calling, 400 ; 
a sweet savour to God, 453 seq. ; the 
glory of, 480 seq., 482 seq.; his 
power of life, 497 seq. ; their afflic- 
tions and their glory, 503, 505, 548, 
558 ; walking by faith, 503; striv- 
ing to please God, 521 seq. ; anew 
creature, 533 seq. ; acoworker with 
God, 544 seq. ; his righteous con- 
duct, 548 seq. ; his moral duty, 551 
seq.; the temple of God, 556, 558 ; 
the riches of, 584 seq. 

Christianity, The blessings of, 14 seq. ; 
and nature, 272. 

Christ-party, The, 83 seq. ; 150, 183. 

Circumcision, 165. 

Church, The, founded on Christ, 70 
seq. ; its building materials, 72 ; the 
abode of the Spirit, 78 seq. ; its 
teachers, 84; its basis, 104 seq., 
106; its discipline, 111 seq., 124; 
scandal in the, 115 ; to be purified, 
115 seq., 124; united to Christ, 145; 
as Christ’s body, 294 seq. ; govern- 
ment in, 295 seq.; to be edified, 
320, 321 seq. ; the temple of God, 
624 seq. 

Comfort, from God, 417 seq., 436, 439 
seq., 502, 565 seq. 

Collections, 895, 580 seq., 586 seq., 
593 seq., 600 seq. 

Communion, 229 seq., 231 seq., 233 
seq., 236 seq., 243. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


Communism, 590 seq., 598, 612, 613. 

Companionship with evil, 372 seq. 

Conduct, Rule of, 241; righteous, 
548 seq. 

Confession, of sin, 269; of Christ, 
297. 

Confidence, desired, 561; secured, 574 
seq., 576. 

Conscience, 89 ; of the heathen, 188 ; 
under temptation, 190 seq. ; vio- 
lated, 191; treatment of, 191: in 
eating sacrificial meats, 238, 239 ; 
testimony of, 424 seq. 

Contentiousness, reproved, 256 seq., 
272 seq., 692 seq., 698. 

Continency, 154. 

Conversion, 167, 528, 535. 

Conviction, of the heart, 460, 483. 

Corinth, The Church at,1; its un- 
mixéd character, 2; its divisions, 
3 seq. ; receives Paul’s Epistles, 6 ; 
its parties, 12; favored with gifts, 
14 seq.; a testimony for Paul, 461 
seq. ; Paul’s visit to, 700, 711. 

Corinthians, Epistles to the, apocry- 
phal, 4seq. 

Corinthians, First Epistle to the, 4 ; 
occasion of writing, 5; aim and 
contents, 5; to whom written, 6; 
place and time of writing, 6, 118 ; 
its genuineness, 6 seq.; its address, 
11 seq. 

Corinthians, Second Epistle to the, 
409 ; occasion of writing, 410 ; aim, 
411 ; contents, 411, 412; place of 
writing, 412 seq. ; genuineness of, 
413 ; unity of, 414, 

Communicant, The worthy, 269, 273. 

Covenant, 264 seq. ; the new and the 
old, 464 seq., 466 seq., 483, 474 seq., 
484, 475 seq. 

Covetousness, 603, 613. 

Creation, Mosaic account of, 272. 

Creatures of God, good, 238. 

Crispus, 1 ; baptized by Paul, 25. 

Cross of Christ, 27; preached, 31 seq.; 
its influence with the Jews, 32. 

Crucifixion of Christ, 50. 

Culture, opposed to the Gospel, 2. 


D, 


Dancing, 223. 

Dead, Raising the, 282, 338, 340, 348, 
350, 352, 353, 354, 355. 374, 376, 
383, 385, 386, 387, 391, 392, 393. 

Death, through man, 353 ; universal, 
353 seq.; the last enemy over- 
come, 360 seq. ; done away with, 
388 seq.; a transition state, 374, 
392 seq. ; the sentence of, 422, 437 ; 
eternal, 466 ; no fear of, 516; ethi- 
cal, universal, 529, 542. 


TOPICAL 


Decrees of God, 87. 

Deceit, reproved, 652. 

Defilement, 189. 

Deliverance, promised, 226 seq. ; of 
God, 422, 436 ; prayer for, 684. 

Demons, or devils, 235 seq. 

Dependence, Mutual, 290, 292. 

Desertion, 161 seq., 179 seq. 

Discernment, of Scripture, 56 seq., 
58 seq. 

Discipline of the Spirit, 105 ; of the 
Church, 111 seq., 121, 122, 124, 192, 
445 seq., 456 ; unto edification, 709. 

Discontent of Christians, 223 seq. 

Discrepancy of Scripture, 223, 243. 

Dissensions, reproved, 257 seq. ; uses 
of, 273. 

Divorce, 109, 156 seq., 158 seq., 160 
seq., 171 seq., 178,179, 180. 

Doctrines, Development of, 72. 

Drunkurd, The, warned against, 121. 


E. 


Earnestness, manifested, 601 seq. 

Easter, 118. 

Ebionitism, 23. 

Eestasy, 672. 

Edification, 320 ; by prayer, 321 seq.; 
in discourse, 335 ; in all teaching, 
329, 336; 691. 

Elections, Church, 593. 

Election, Divine, 34 seq., 185. 

Encouragement, 517, 519. 

End, The, of the Resurrection, 356 ; 
of the world, 385 seq., 392, 511. 

Endowment, 295. 

Ephesus, 6, 398, 405. 

Epicureanism, 149, 339 ; 
maxims, 369 seq. 

Epistle, A lost, 118 seq., 125. 

Equality, Christian, 167. 

Essenes, 22, 150. 

Eve, The fall of, 640 seq., 667. 

Evil Angels, 225, 253. 

Evil, The rights of, 187 seq. ; avoid- 
ance Of, 241 seq., 707; association 
with, 372 seq. ; renounced, 487 seq. 

Excommunication, 109 ; enforced, 111 
seq:, 113 seq., 124. 

Exhortation, to steadfastness, 342, 390 
seq., 391, 400, 405, 433 seq. 

Expediency, Christian, 137 seq.; 
rule of, 191, 192 seq. ; 
tion, 237. 


ifs immoral 


the 
its applica- 


F. 


Factions, The, 39, 123. 

Faith, perseverance in, 16; and bap- 
tism, 24 seq.; based on God’s power, 
46 ; saving, 281 seq. ; without love, 
302; and love, 308 seq., 310 seq.; de- 
pendent on Christ’s resurrection, 349 





INDEX. 115 
seq. ; steadfastness in the, 342, 390, 
391, 400, 405, 433 seq., 438; the 


spirit of, 498 ; in Christ’s salvation, 
499 ; walking by, 518, 541; appro- 
priating salvation, 535 ; increase of, 
632 seq. 

Faithfulness of God, 227 seq., 243, 
431, 437. 

Fasting, 547, 557. 

Fatherhood, Spiritual, 218. 

Fear of God, The, 560 seq., 575. 

Feasts, Sacrificial, 182, 204, 227 seq., 
233 seq., 235 seq. 

Fellow ship, Christian, 159 seq., 229 
seq., 231 seq., 401 seq., 403 seq., 
418 seq., 441 seq., 610 seq. 

Fellowship, with Christ, 10, 13, 16, 
142 ; in the Lord’s Supper, 229, 230 
seq ; with unbelievers, 554 seq., 558; 
with saints, 580 seq. 

Fidelity, 88 ; decided by God, 89 seq.; 
to one’s calling, 165 seq., 169, 180. 

Folly, reproved, 80. 

Forbearance, 191, 239 seq., 444 seq., 
456. 

Forgiveness, 443 seq., 446 seq., 448 
seq. 

Fornication, 108 seq., 119 seq., 121 
seq., 123, 137 seq., 139 seq., 141 seq., 
143 seq., 151 seq., 223. 

Foundation, The, laid, 70, 73. 

Freedom, Moral, 137 seq., 154, 163, 

167, 172, 189, 236, 238, 239 seq.; in 
the Spirit, 479 seq. 


. G. 

Gaius, 25. — 

Gallio, 2. 

Gifts, bestowed. 14 seq.; all from God, 
95 seq., of the Holy Spirit, 275, 
277 seq., 479 seq.; classes of, 280 
seq., 282; in the church, 295 seq., 
distributed, 296. 

Glory of God, sought for, 241, 243 
seq.; completed, 393; in Christ, 
493, 502, 504. 

Glory, to be revealed, 50 seq., 481 seq., 
485. 

God, his faithfulness, 16, 227; con- 
founds the world’s wisdom, 28; 
manifests His own wisdom, 30 seq., 
33 seq. ; His choice of means, 35 
seq. ; secures us Salvation, 36 seq. ; 
glorying in, 38; revealed through 
the Spirit, 52; source of spiritual 
growth, 69 seq. ; His wrath, 77 ; as 
Judge 122 seq.; the only Deity, 168 
seq.; as Creator, 238 seq.; His 
glory, 241, 243; His absolute sov- 
ereignty, 362 seq.; and the resur- 
rection body, 375; the Father of 
Mercies, 436 ; trust in, 422; giveth 


LG TOPICAL 


victory, 452 seq., 457; man’s suf- 
ficiency, 455, 457, 463 seq. ; giveth 
the Spirit, 517. 

Gospel, The, proclaimed to the lower 
classes, 1 ; established in the be-- 
liever’s soul, 14; proclaimed, 30, 
340 ; without charge, 209 ; opposi- 
tion to, 398, 405; not changeable, 
432 ; triumph of, 621 seq. 

Government, in the Church, 295 seq. 

Grace of God, The, in Christ, 13; 
powerful in Paul, 347 seq. ; impart- 
ed through him, 428 ; in vain, 545, 
557 ; given to liberal churches, 578 ; 
freely given, 607 seq. ; sufficient for 
all trials, 684 seq. 

Greeks, The, litigious, 145 seq. 





Greeting, Apostolic, 9, 18, 403 seq., 
416 seq., farewell, 710. 


He 


Head-covering, in prayer, 247 seq., 
249 seq., 251 seq., 255 seq., 272. 

Heathen gods, 185 seq. 

Heathenism, 285 seq. ; 
with, 554 seq., 558. 

Heathen vices, 121 seq. 

Heaven, longing for, 510 seq., 515 seq., 
519 seq., 541, 542; our home, 518; 
the number of heavens, 674 seq., 
696 ; visions of, 677. 

Holiness, in Christ, 37 seq., 117; to 
be established, 560 seq., 575. 

Holy Spirit, The, his gifts, 14 seq., 
275, 279 seq., 281 seq., 287 seq., 314 
seq. ; revelation of, 51 seq. ; dwell- 
ing in the church, 78 seq., 461 seq. ; 
his gentleness, 105; a symbol of, 
219; imparted, 289; given to the 
church, 295; to human prophets, 
332 seq., anointing of, 434 seq., 437 
seq. ; dedicating the ministry, 468 ; 
giving life, 464 seq.; giving liberty, 
479 seq. ; from God, 517. 

Honesty, recommended, 594. 

Humanity, to the brute creation, 200, 
215. ‘ 

Humility, The rule of, 93 seq. ; en- 
forced, 95 seq. ; exemplified, 212 ; 
enjoined, 226. 

Husband, Duties of a, 152 seq. 


I. 


Idols and Idolatry, 182 seq., 185 seq., 
188 seq., 190 seq., 192, 223, 227, 233 
seq., 276. 

Immortality, 374 seq., 377 seq., 381 
seq. ; longing for, 510, 515 seq., 541. 

Impressions, False, corrected, 691 seq., 
698. 

Incest, 5, 108 seq. ; how punished, 
111 seq. 


intercourse 


INDEX. 


Incontinency, 153. 

Indulgence of Sin, 224, Ps 

Infant Baptism, 160, 179. 

Infirmities, 685, 697. 

Inspiration, 568, 575. 

Intercourse, with sinners, 119 seq., 
121 seq. ; with unbelievers, 554 seq., 
558. 

Intermediate State, The, 39, 340. 

Interpretation, Scripture, 55 seq., 61 
seq. ; the gift of, 321 seq., 334 seq. 

Interpretation, The gift of, 283 seq., 
324 seq. 

Irony, Apostolic, 96, 98 ; of Paul, 106, 
459 seq., 638 seq., 641 seq., 655 seq., 
687 seq. 

Israelites, The, 218; their exodus, 
219; in the Wilderness, 221; their 
sacrifices, 228 ; their hardening, 473 
seq. ; blinded, 475 seq. ; enlighten- 
ed, 476. 

Isthmian Games, 212 seq. 


J 


James, the brother of Christ, 21 ; wit- 
ness of Christ’s resurrection, 345. 

Jealousy, godly, 639 seq., 667. 

Jerusalem, The church at, 394 seq. 

Jesuits, The first, 22. 

Joy, in tribulation, 564 seq., 566 seq. ; 
secured, 573 seq. 

Judaists, 23. 

Judgment Day, The, 15, 74 seq., 84, 
90 seq., 128 seq., 225, 386 seq., 499 
seq., 505, 522. 

Judgments of God, 28, 79, 122 seq., 
271; to be vindicated, 622, 653, 
667 ; foretold, 693 seq. 

Judgments of Men, 90, 122. 

Justification, 1385 seq., 146; by faith 
and love, 309; the doctrine of, 529 
seq., 543. 

Justus, 1; the church in his house, 2. 


K 


Kiss, An holy, 403, 710. 

Knowledge, 183 seq., 192 ; its conceit, 
184 ; its abuse, 191; as a gift, 281 ; 
the word of, 298; without love, 
302 ; imperfect, 305 seq., 307 seq.; 
according to the Spirit, 531 seq. 

Knowledge of God, revealed, 52; a 
matter of experience, 184 seq. ; the 
light of the, 492 seq., 505, 

Knowledge, through Christ, 13 seq. ; 
of Christ, 531. 


L. 


Labor, and its Reward, 200 seq., 215, 
390 seq. 

Law, The, as higher authority, 199; 
of Moses, 467, 475 seq. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


Lawsuits forbidden, 127 seq., 131 seq., 
133 geq., 145 seq. 

Leaven, 114 seq. 

Letters of Commendation, 459, 461. 

Liberality, commended, 237, 242, 394 
seq. ; exhibited, 573 seq., 597, 580 


seq. ; exhortation to, 583 seq. ; the - 


divine measure of, 588 seq. ; equal 
and universal, 589 seq., 598; free 
and cordial, 605 ; the reward of, 605 
seq. ; its spirit, 607 seq., 613 seq. ; 
blessings of, 609 seq. 

Liberty, Christian, 137 seq., 180, 189 
seq., 236, 238, 239 seq.; in the 
Spirit, 479 seq. 

Life, Spiritual, activity of, 450. 

Liturgies, Eucharistic, 266. 

Living for Christ, 530. 

Lord's Supper, The, 117, 219 seq., 228 

_seq., 230 seq., 232 seq., 243, 259 ; 
disorders at, 260 seq., its institu- 
tion, 261 ; its doctrine and celebra- 
tion, 263 seq., 265 seq. ; liturgies of 
266 ; worthy reception of, 267 seq., 
273; Zwinglian view of, 268; self- 
examination for, 269 ; unworthy re- 
ception of, 269 seq. ; its transfigur- 

- ing power, 514. 

Love, 184 seq., 192; as a gift, 297, 
299 ; the want of, 300 seq., 302 ; ex- 
cellency of, 303 seq., 313 ; personi- 
fied, 303; its characteristics, 304 
seq. ; its imperishableness, 305 seq. ; 
and faith and hope, 308 seq., 310 
seq.; description of, 310 ; the great- 
est gift, 310 seq.; in ali things, 
400 ; its exercise, 447, 552 seq.; con- 
straining, 527 seq., 542; exhibited 
in benevolence, 583 seq., 597 ; 
brotherly, 596. 

Love Feasts, 122, 258, 259, 271. 

Lutheran Church, Evangelical, The, 
its doctrinal development, 72 ; and 
the Lord’s Supper, 230 seq., 263 
seq., 270, 


M. 


Macedonia, 397 ; receiving grace, 578; 
showing benevolence, 578 seq., 580 
seq. 

Man, his spiritual condition, 57 seq., 


65 ; with Christ’s spirit, 60; the 


temple of God, 78; over woman, 
246 seq.; with head covered in 
prayer, 247 seq., 249 seq., 255; de- 
pendent on woman, 254 seq. 

Man, The Natural, 64 seq., 67. 

Marriage, 149 seq., 151 seq., 155 seq., 
158 seq., 162 seq., 170 seq., 1735 seq., 
178 seq., 180, 189, 250, 252 seq. ; 
from a Christian standpoint, 254 
seq.; mixed marriages, 158, 159, 


LY 


161, 178 ‘seq. ; with unbelievers, 
554 seq., 558. 

Martyrdom, 303, 

Meat, offered to idols, 183, 185, 188 
seq., 190 seq.; abstinence from, 191, 
233 seq., 237 seq., 239 seq. 

Memory, Confusion of the, 61. 

Messianic Kingdom, The, 10, 17, 74 
seq., 84, 96 seq. ; its basis, 104 seq , 
106 ; its advent, 305; its develop- 
ment, 308 seq. ; its end, 356, 358. 

Millennium, The, 357 seq., 359. 

Mind ot Christ, The, 59 seq. 

Ministerial Support, 200 seq., 202 seq., 
204 seq. 

Ministry, The Christian, 466; its 
glory, 467, 486 ; its dedication, 468, 
470; free from sin, 487 ; sufferings 
in the, 495 seq., 505, 547 seq., 549 
seq.; of reconciliation, 535, 537 
seq. ; its moral power, 546, 547. 

Miracles, The gift of, 282. 

Modesty, The rule of, 93 seq. ; een- 
forced, 95 seq. 

Monasticism, 197. 

Monks, The first, 22. 

Monotheism, of the New Testament, 
83. 

Moses, 218; his ministry, 467 seq., 
469 seq., 471 seq., 473 seq., 484, 
475 seq. 

Murmuring, against spiritual authori- 
ty, 224. 

Musical instruments, 517. 

Mystery of God, revealed, 52. 

Mythology, Heathen, 186. 


N. 


Nature, conformity to, 255, 272. 
New Testament, its practical charac- 
ter, 393 ; its monotheism, 83. 


O 


Obedience, to authority, 447, 456. 

Offence, giving no, 242 seq. 

Old ‘Testament, Manner of quoting 
the, 556 seq., 558. 

Order, in God’s kingdom, 246 seq. ; 
in public worship, 331 seq., 333, 335, 
336. 

Organic Nature, its glory in diversity, 
375 seq. 


tig 


Paradise, 676 seq. 

Pardon, 443 seq., 448 seq. 

Parousia, The, 16, 74 seq., 114, 
225 seq., 305 seq., 355 seq., 385 seq., 
387 seq., 404 seq., 427, 467 seq., 
484, 507 seq., 511 seq., 541. 

Partisanship at Corinth, 19 seq.; re- 
buked, 24 seq., 91 seq., 96 seq., 
123 ; considered, 39, 67 seq. 


718 


Paschal Lamb, The, 116 seq. 

Passover, The, 116 seq., 118. 

Paul, at Corinth, 1; at Athens, 2; 
his authority attacked, 3; writes 
his first Epistle, 5; his visits to 
Corinth, 6; his greeting, 9 seq. ; 
called by God’s will, 9; full of 
Christ, 15 ; exhorts to unity, 17; 
his party, 19 seq., 84; his relation 
to baptism, 25 seq.; his function as 
a teacher, 26; preaches Christ, 
31 seq., 43 seq.; rebukes party 
strife, 67 seq. ; lays the foundation, 
70; as spiritual father. 102 seq. ; 
sends Timothy, 103; his plenary 
authority, 111 seq. ; his unmarried 
state, 155, 175, 215 ; and circumci- 
sion, 192 seq. ; his vision of Christ, 
196 ; his claim as apostle, 196 seq., 
215; his secular occupation, 199 ; 
means of support, 205 seq., 647 ; 
his apostolic reward, 208 ; all things 
to all men, 210 seq.; divine revela- 
tion to, 263, 273; as a teacher, 
316 ; a witness of Christ’s resurrec- 
tion, 346 ; his humility, 346 seq. ; in- 
fluenced by God’s grace, 347 ; in dai- 
ly suffering, 369, 547 seq., 549 seq. ; 
his conflict with wild beasts, 369 
seq.; writes numerous letters, 396 ; 
reason of his comfort, 419 seq. ; his 
plan of journey, 427 seq. ; a messen- 
ger of grace, 428 ; a man of word, 
429 seq. ; not Lord over the faith, 
435 seq. ; his forbearance, 444 seq., 
456; his forgiveness, 443 seq. ; 
quotes from the Psalms, 498, 505 ; 
persuades men, 523 seq. ; manifests 
zeal, 526; an ambassador of God, 
538 seq. ; his fraternal love, 562 seq. ; 
desires contidence, 561 ; secures it, 
574 seq., 576 ; vindicates his author- 
ity. 617 seq., 619 seq., 625; his 
bodily presence, 626, 636 ; his prov- 
ince, 631, 636; indulges in irony, 
638 seq. ; his speech, 644 seq. ; his 
gratuitous service, 646 seq., 667 ; 
indulges in boasting, 654 seq.; 
667 seq.; relates his sufferings, 
660 seq. ; his escape from Damascus, 
666 ; his special revelations, 671 seq. ; 
receives a thorn in the flesh, 
680 seq. ; works signs and wonders, 
687 ; threatens discipline, 700 seq. ; 
farewell exhortation and greeting, 
709 seq. 

Peace, Conditions of, 709 seq., 712. 

Perfect, The, 60 seq. 


Pentateuch, its divine authority, 272. 7 


Pentecost, 398. 
Perseverance, in faith, 16. 
Peter, 3 ; the party of, 83 seq.; a mar- 





TOPICAL INDEX, 


ried man, 150; his wife, 199; his 
primacy, 644. 

Petrine party, 150, 189, 196, 404. 

Philosophy, Christian, 41, 48, 

Polygamy, 152. 

Poverty, of the Primitive Church, 
394 ; of Macedonia, 579, 596 seq. 

Power, 104 seq., 215. 

Prayer, demeanour in, 247, 249 seq., 
251 seq., 255 seq. : with understand- 
ing, 321 seq. ; of thanksgiving, 323, 
423 seq. ; intercessory, 423, 707. 

Preaching, of Paul, 26 seq., 431, 437 ; 
of the Cross, 27; its foolishness, 
30; its nature and aim, 31 seq., 
43 seq., 54 seq. ; with recompense, 
206; a necessity, 206, 216; 
its Messianic reward, 207; in un- 
known tongues, 316 seq., 319, 321, 
327 seq., 380 seq., 334 seq.; depend- 
ent on Christs resurrection, 349 
seq. ; ability in, from God, 455, 457 ; 
Christ, 491 seq. ; gratuitously, 646 
seq., 667 ; for deliverance, 684. 

Predestination, 27, 49, 453 seq., 457. 

Pride of Party, rebuked, 91 seq. 

Priesthood, The Levitical, 466 seq. 

Priests, 204. 

Progress, Moral and Spiritual, 305 seq. 


4 Promises of God, certain, 433, 560. 


Prophecy, of the Old Testament, 28 ; 

Prophecy, The gift of, 282, 314 seq., 
316 seq. 331 seq.; without love, 302; 
its design, 326 seq., 328 ; its order, 
331 seq., 334 seq. 

Providence of God, 180, 200 seq., 215. 

Punishment, remedial, 114 ; admin- 
istered, 445 seq., 446; for deeds 
done, 521 seq., 542, 653, 667, 694 
seq. 

Purgatory, 74, 84. 

Purification of the Church, 145 seq., 
123, 124. 

Purity, Moral, 175. 


Q. 
Quotations, 40. 


R. 

Rabbinical Exposition, 473, 484. 

Rebuke, administered, 442 seq. 

Reconciliation, 534 seq., 542 seq., 
536 seq. 

Redemption in Christ, 37 seq., 47, 
534, 542 seq., 539, 543 ; the price of, 
144, 168. 

Regeneration, 135, 534. 

Religion, The beginning of, 66. 

Renunciation, of self, 209 seq., 216. 

Repentance, 113 ; unto salvation, 569 
seq., 576, 

Reprobates, 706, 711 seq. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


Responses, 322 seq., 335, 433. 

Restoration, The doctrine of, 363 seq. 

Resurrection, of Christ, 340, 343 ; wit- 
nesses of, 344 seq., 346 ; the central 
doctrine, 349 seq.; its certainty, 
352 seq., 499 ; its glory, 490 seq. 

Resurrection of the Dead, 338 seq., 
340 seq., 499, 507, 512, 541 ; denied 
by some, 348 seq. ; terrible alterna- 
tives of, 350 seq., 352 seq. ; through 
man, 353; universal, 354 seq. ; in 
complete order, 355 seq. ; nature of 
their bodies, 374 seq., 376 seq., 383 
seq., 386, 387, 392 seq. ; the time of, 
385. 

Reward, of work, 69, 74 seq., of deeds 
done, 521 seq., 542. 

Revelations, Divine, 331 seq. ; special, 
to Paul, 671 seq. 

Righteousness, in Christ, 37 seq., 135, 
539 seq., 543. 

Rubrics, Primitive, 336. 


S. 


Sacrament, The idea of a, 220; the 
number of, 242. 

Sacrifices, 182, 204, 227, 228, 233 seq., 
235 seq. 

Sadduceeism, 338 seq. 

Saints, on earth, 10 seq. 

Salvation, from God, 16, 36 seq. ; by 
the Cross, 27; by preaching, 30 
seq. ; its proper understanding, 39 
seq. ; revealed by the Spirit 52; 
degrees of, 76 seq., 522, 542 ; the gift 
of grace, 76; with difficulty, 84; 
of God’s calling, 164; its cause, 
184; Messianic, 212 seq., 242; a 
life-struggle, 216; by the Gospel, 
341 ; in the present, 546, 557. 

Sanctification, 10 seq., 135 seq., 146, 
159. 

Satan, 111 seq..; to be destroyed, 130 ; 
his devices, 449, 456 ; blinding man, 
489 seq., 504; intercourse with, 
555 ; and Adam’s fall, 641, 667 ; his 

’ personality, 652 seq., 667; the 
angel, 681. 

Scandal, in the church, 115, 124. 

Schism, reproved, 293. 

Scripture, Unity of, 40. 

Sectarianism, at Corinth, 2 seq. ; re- 
buked, 17 seq., 24 seq. ; considered, 
39, 67 seq.; pride of, 91 seq., 96 


seq. 

Self-conceit, 110, 627 seq., 631 seq., 
636. 

Self-control, 213 seq., 218. 

Self-deception, 79; warned against, 
226. 

Self-denial, 173 seq., 180, 202 seq., 210 
seq., 216. 


119 


Self-devotion, 660 seq., 668, 689. 

Self-examination, 269, 270, 706. 

Selfishness, condemned, 287. 

Self-measurement, 628 seq., 631 seq., 
636. 

Self-punishment, 214. 

Separation of Manand Wife, 156 seq., 
178 seq. 

Services of Help, 294 seq., 299. 

Serving God, 236. 

Sex, Distinctions of, 140 ‘seq., 272; 
subordination of, 247-seq., 249 seq., 
251 seq., 272; Christian relations 
of, 254 seq. 

Silas, 1. 

Sin, warning against, 226 seq., 225 
seq.; incitements to, 226 ; to be pun- 
ished, 702 seq. 

Slander, refuted, 689 seq., 697. 

Slavery, 166, 180 ; its abolition, 167. 

Social Exclusion, 118 seq. 

Sodomy, 134. 

Sorrow, godly, 569 seq., 576. 

Sosthenes, 9. 

Sowing and reaping, 202 seq. 

Spectacle of the Universe, 97 seq., 
106. 

Speech, 104 seq. 

Spirit, The Human, 52 seq. 

Steadfastness, Exhortation to, 342, 
390 seq., 391, 400, 405, 433 seq. 

Stephanas, 25, 401. 

Stewards of God, 87 seq. 

Stumbling-blocks, 189 seq. 

Subordination of Christ, 11, 83, 85, 
247. 

Substitution, of Christ, 529 seq., 542 


seq. : 
Suicide, 148. 
Suffering, for the Gospel’s sake, 203, 
660 seq., 668. 
Suffering from God, 455, 457, 463. 
Sunday, its practical observance, 395, 
405. 
A he 


Teachers, A Divine Order of, not in- 
stituted, 5; their ability, 316; to 
speak in their own language, 324, 
336. 

Teaching of the. Apostles, 26; of 
Christ’s disciples, 73 ; tried by fire, 
74 seq.; not restricted to office, 329, 
336. 

Temptations, 226 ; help in, 227. 

Tempting God, 233 seq. 

Thanksgiving, 238, 243, 323, 390, 417, 
436, 423 seq., 451 seq., 501, 608 seq., 
612. 

Things eternal and temporal, 503. 

Thorn in the flesh, Paul’s, 680 seq. 

Timothy, 1, 416; sent to Corinth, 5, 
103, 398, 409; his conversion, 103. 


720 TOPICAL 


Titus, 1; hisjoy, 574; to gather con- 
tributions, 582; sent to Corinth, 
591 seq.; companion of Paul, 592 ; 
commended, 594 seq. 


Tongues, The gift of, 275 seq., 277 
seq., 279 seq., 284 seq., 286 seq., 
296, 298, 300 seq., 314 seq., 316 
seq., 324 seq., 327 seq., 330 seq., 
336. 

Tonsure, The, 255. 

Traditions, 246, 271 ; historical, 348. 


Translation, of the body, 520. 

Transubstantiation, 270. 

Trinity, The, 279 ; recognized, 
TLS 

Trumpet, The, 318; at the resurrec- 
tion, 387. 

Trust in God, 422. 

Truth, 304; manifested, 488; alone 
decisive, 708, 712. 


710, 


U. 


Unbelievers, at law with, 133 seq., 
145 seq. ; lost, 488%seq., 504 ; blinded 
by Satan, 489 seq., 504 seq. 

Unchastity, 5. 

Uncircumcision, 165 seq., 180. 

Union with Christ, 10, 13, 142, 231 seq. 

Unity, Christian, enjoined, 17 seq. ; 
in the Lord’s Supper, 232 seq. ; of 
believers, 290. 

Unrighteousness, endured, 133 seq. 

Utterance, imparted by Christ, 13. 


Vs 


Veil, as a covering, 251 seq., 256; as a 
symbol, 253. 

Vices, excluding from the kingdom, 
134. 

Vision, Ecstatic, 676 seq., 697. 

Victory, through God, 452 seq., 457. 

Virgins, and Virgin Life, 169, 174, 177 


seq. 
Virtues, The theological, 308 seq. 


INDEX. 


W. 


Warfare, carnal, 619 seq. ; spiritual, 
620 seq., 635 seq. 

Warning, against sin, 222 seq., 225, 
226, 372 seq., 694 seq. 

Weakness, Moral, 270 ; physical, 684 ; 
becomes strength, 685 seq., 704 seq. 

Wicked, The, judged, 123; not to 
enter heaven, 134. 

Widowers, 155. 

Widows, 156. 

Wife, Duties of a, 152 seq., 174 seq. 

Will of God, The, 291. 

Wisdom, Christian, 281 ; the word of, 
298, 

Wisdom, of the world, 28 seq., 425; 
of God, 30 seq., 33 seq., 35 seq., 45 
seq., 48 seq., 60 seq. ; in Christ, 37 
seq. ; its glorious character, 41 ; re- 
vealed by the Spirit, 46; religious 
wisdom, 47; wordly wisdom re- 
buked, 79 seq. 

Woman, her rank, 246 seq. ; her de- 
meanor in public prayer, 247 seq., 
249 seq., 255 seq.; the glory of man, 
251 seq., 272 ; dependent upon man, 
254 seq.; to be silent in public wor- 
ship, 333 seq., 336. { 

Workers with God, 69; rewarded, 74 


seq. 

Works, without love, 302. 

World-power, and wisdom, 35 seq. 

Worship, of Christ, 11. 

Worship, public, 247 seq., 249 seq., 
251 seq., 255 seq.; 327 seq., 329 seq. ; 
with the understanding, 322 ; order 
in, 331 seq., 333, 335, 336 ; woman 
in, 333 seq., 336. 

Wrath of God, UTE 128 


Z. 


Zeal, after gifts, 296, 297, 299, 313 seq, 
319 ; for God, 526 seq. ; disciplinary, 
571, 576 ; awakened, 572; given of 
God, 591, 598 ; stimulated, 601 seq.. 

Zwingli, his view of the Lord’s Sup- 
per, 231, 268. 


THE LIBRARY OF THE 


MAY 2% 1933 


UNIVEnoiy UF ILLiOlS, 


‘om — 
0 oe lee 


->.* 


. 


i 


- 








ty 


ie 








‘ 


Ce ee as 


$i) 


oe) 
ty | 








